Closely Watched Trains

Closely Watched Trains (Jiri Menzel, 1966) [5]

For its time, this film could have been considered on the cutting edge of addressing sexuality in a real and frank manner on celluloid. Unfortunately, it hasn't aged particularly well and is definitely a product of a different place and era. The plot centers around Milos, an apprentice train dispatcher who becomes wrapped up into losing his virginity to his conductor girlfriend. Initially, he has some, um, difficulties, and compensates by trying to commit suicide. The rest of the film concentrates on Milos getting some practice before finally consummating his relationship with Masa. That description sounds fairly crude but Menzel handles the material with enough wry humor and respect for his characters that it comes off as harmless and sweet. This isn't some raunchy numbskullery like American Pie. The film has a poignancy to it that isn't often seen in American cinema dealing with this subject matter. But the operating world of the film is weirdly disjointed, as the film is so engrossed in Milos and his quest that everyone is completely oblivious to the fact this is occurring during World War II and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. The war and its effects pop up sporadically, especially the end, but it feels like the reality of the world at war is being repressed. Sex is probably one of the only topics that could supersede war in a person's mind. It paints a quaint story for this film, but something, that sadly doesn't translate particularly well over the years.

The Lives of Others

The Lives of Others (Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, 2007) [7]

After viewing this, it's no real surprise that this film has been so critically acclaimed and received Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars. It's the same type of middlebrow, safe picture like Mystic River that can appeal to critics and a general American audience. I don't mean to say these are bad films, they're not. A film like this is so stringent in its narrative and what it wants to say that it really leaves any room for anything else. On one level, that's appealing in that everything is being spelled out for the viewer but it's also a bit disappointing that it leaves no room real risk-taking. What saves this film here is that von Donnersmarck has superbly crafted this film in terms of tone and images that take away from the aggressive thematic and plot elements. He overdoes the entire art triumphing over strict ideology too much, as the characters of Wiesler and Dreymen are too easily encased in their roles. As the film progresses towards the end, it appears to me that the film is riding too much on getting to its pre-determined ending, which ends up being its bittersweet resolution. All this sounds like I didn't like the film, but there's something about it that makes it palatable. von Donnersmarck's direction is solid and the look he has created for the film, especially the contrast of the cold, darker world or Wiesler the stodgy ideologue with the more vibrant, light look of Dreyman the artist. It brings out the argument being made by the film that totalitarian socialism, by restricting and monitoring art, hurts the very same ideals that it supposedly stands for.

Battle In Heaven

Battle In Heaven (Carlos Reygadas, 2006) [6]

Reygadas's film is about many things (the urban landscape of Mexico City, the immense social stratification of that nation, sexual attraction, religion) and really not about anything. This is an extremely rigorous film, a film that needs strict attention to the visuals. Reygadas has stripped any normal sense of plot away from the film, as the film meanders from scene to scene, taking its time. What makes it difficult is trying to decipher just want to take away from this. You can read into the religious angle, the social commentary (the whole subplot of Carlos and his wife kidnapping the baby), and of course, the sex. The film itself never really gives a strong toehold into any of them, only to mention them and then move on to something else. It has been a couple of days since I've seen this and I'm still not sure exactly what to make of it. By stripping his film of so many filmic elements viewers take for granted, it's hard to say I like it in terms of plot and character. But I'm also a person very interested in the visual aspects of cinema, and here with languid, meditative shots, it is something I can really appreciate. Overall, I'm still puzzled by it but know underneath my mental haze, there is something worth being said underneath.

Monthly Listening Post - August 2007

A fairly busy month for new releases, a mix of new artists and old favorites. I don't know how many of these will be on my final top ten but this is a strong group of contenders.

1) Josh Ritter - The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter
2) Rilo Kiley - Under the Blacklight
3) Jason Isbell - Sirens of the Ditch
4) Okkervil River - The Stage Names
5) Augie March - Moo, You Bloody Choir

Also, after a lousy summer for concerts, the fall concert season is definitely heating up, especially in Upstate New York. Syracuse has Bob Dylan/Elvis Costello and Phil Lesh in October while the Magic City Music Dump here in the Binghamton area has Gov't Mule, and Umphrey's McGee. The biggest surprise is that Bright Eyes will be playing Magic City in November which is completely unbelievable that an "indie" artist is playing Binghamton. Plus I'm heading out to Portland, Oregon in November to see The Hold Steady (more on that later.) It's definitely going to be an eventful fall.

Spectres of the Spectrum

Spectres of the Spectrum (Craig Baldwin, 2000) [7]

I'm a big fan of Baldwin's work, especially Tribulation 99 and this film treads much of the same ground as that film. Baldwin is a collage or found footage filmmaker, which means he uses images from other sources to create his films. This film as well as Tribulation 99 use mostly old science fiction footage to create what appear on the surface to be paranoid psuedo-documentaries but do have a critique of American political and business policies. Spectres focuses on a father and daughter who are out to show that a corporate/government monopoly on communications and radar technology to control the population and destroy the natural ionosphere of the earth. It's incredibly complicated exaggeration Baldwin has come up with, the father and daughter having to travel back in time to save the world. This plus while taking tangents into Tesla's alternating current, the creation and subsequent monopoly of radio and television, and political commentary. The first 30 to 45 are difficult to grasp but once the father and daughter get down to actually carrying out their task the film becomes much more streamlined and easy to follow. As with any Baldwin film, there are an overload of images, from everything to 50's science television programs to more modern films like Gremlins. On the surface, this all seems rambling and incoherent but the underlying message of Baldwin's films are its most important points. Baldwin is urging the public to take back their media and ways of getting information. The media conglomerates have for far too long has a stranglehold on determining what information that people can hear. Baldwin makes the point that media like radio and television initially belonged in the public arena and that corporate control is bad for the earth as a whole. It may be hard to grasp from the density of images assembled, but it's there to be found.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon

The U.S. vs. John Lennon (David Leaf & John Scheinfeld, 2006) [6]

An interesting at times documentary on the Nixon administration's failed attempts to silence and deport John Lennon for his political views and associations. What's interesting more than Lennon the person are the issues being raised of celebrity, using celebrity for voicing dissent, and the role of the U.S. government in monitoring those individuals. Leaf and Scheinfeld interview numerous people, some like Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky, who have no tangible relation to Lennon. It doesn't work formally because it creates tangents but what they say would be a much more interesting documentary than this one. My main issues here is that this is well covered ground and the filmmakers are bringing nothing that enlightening to Lennon himself. The only real interesting facet that gets revealed but not covered enough is that Lennon's message of peace was extremely naive and that the radicals he associated himself with became more and more confrontational and even violent as the 70s wore on. The film shows that Lennon's power of celebrity was what people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were really after, not so much the ideas. The actual details of Lennon's immigration case are relatively boring but it is interesting to see how paranoid the Nixon administration was in their belief that one entertainer could have that much sway on public opinion. The sad reality, over the years, has become that no famous person (0r group of celebrities) has any real power to influence the political establishment or stop a war. It sure hasn't been successful with Iraq. What this film shows is that John Lennon was really the last entertainer that has had a broad impact on the culture at large but even he never had the influence to make change.

Strange Brew

Strange Brew (Rick Moranis & Dave Thomas, 1983) [5]

It's hard reviewing this film so many years later because it's basic structure, the adventures of two dim-witted men, has been aped by Wayne's World, Tommy Boy, and almost every Will Ferrel movie that it's hard to remember that this was pretty much the first one. Moranis and Thomas the McKenzie brothers made famous on SCTV and now so more for their beer commercials. They're basically two dim-witted brothers concerned with drinking beer and calling one another hoser and telling everyone to take off. Their Canadian white bread routine is funny for a while (about the length of a skit) but the repetition of eh's and hoser only can get so much laughs. Still, there were moments throughout that made me laugh out loud, especially the scene with the two brothers fighting in straight jackets. That's more that can be said for most comedies today. The plot, loosely based on Hamlet, has no real importance to the film; it could have been anything as long as it propels Bob and Doug along and gets them to act stupid. The film also suffers like most comedies of its era from cheesy 80's syndrome, highlighted by not very effective effects and the corny opening credits song. Some credit has to go to Moranis and Thomas for breaking down the fourth wall, clearly addressing the audience and letting them know that they know they're making a movie, something Wayne's World would copy and make seem like new years later. Also, for being two dim bulbs, the McKenzie brothers are completely likable, something that the smugness of Ferrel's characters lack. Strange Brew isn't great and it shows its age but it certainly has more laughs than Rush Hour 3, which I guess passes for comedy nowadays.

Exterminating Angels

Exterminating Angels (Jean-Claude Brisseau, 2007) [4]

It's hard to get people to pay attention to the message of your film when all people are going to remember is hot girls masturbating. Brisseau has always been a director that's going to push the envelope in terms of sexuality, but here he goes so far overboard that he ends up drowning his film. This treads some of the same ground as Secret Things, his previous film (which I happened to like). That film, however, dealt more with the issue of power in relation to sexuality and had campy elements that made it much more enjoyable to watch than this one. Exterminating Angels and especially the character of Francois take themselves way too seriously. Francois especially, since he acts as a vessel for these women to bring out their desires and taboos, which is just a little too convenient for what Francois is looking for. Francois doesn't say or make anything profound out of what he's doing; he comes across as being underhandedly manipulative and eventually, his transgressions (real or imagined) result in tragedy at the end. The only thing that really comes out of the film, mostly because it's repeated, is that Francois doesn't realize what he's getting into. The meeting with Julie at the end reinforces this idea even more. Besides that, Brisseau doesn't offer up anything more. The angels themselves appear haphazardly and don't take on any significance until the end. Brisseau aims for provocation and there's no doubt the sexually explicit scenes here will both intrigue and offend people. The real problem with this film is that there's a lack of anything worthwhile about the sex that's shown beyond titillation.

Live Free or Die

Live Free or Die (Gregg Kavet & Andy Robin, 2007) [3]

The quirky indie comedy is starting to go the way of the studio romantic comedy, so full of standard archetypes and characters that it's hard to make it good. This film, from two former Seinfeld writers, should be a lot funnier but falls back into the pitfalls of quirky just for the hell of it characters and a plot that doesn't really go anywhere. The plot issue isn't that big but the characters here are so unlikable and treated with such indignation by the writers that the end result is completely homeless. Kavet and Robin are so concerned with their convoluted plot and character quirks that they forgot to make a comedy with laughs in it. Granted, there are a few but they mostly involve the hilarious comedian Judah Friedlander, who sadly, isn't in this film enough. The two main characters are treated with such disrespect by the writer/directors by having so little intellect that it's insulting to the viewer as well. Aaron Stanford plays a two-bit loser that tries too hard to be a hardened criminal. Besides being stupid, his character is so over the top in his wannabe macho nature that he's completely unlikable and lacks any real personality. The other, played by Paul Schneider, is even worse. He plays the dim bulb and is there to be laughed at and nothing else. There's something wrong with playing a character's lack of intelligence purely for laughs and not giving him any humanity. I may be a cynic at heart but I like my films to have some human qualities in them and these two walking cartoon characters are so blatantly offensive to my sensibilities that I wanted to strangle the ones responsible for them. It's too bad because the story itself does have some funny moments but the down ending is completely off base for the rest of the film. This film's lack of consistency makes it a muddled mess that doesn't work at all.

Zodiac

Zodiac (David Fincher, 2007) [8]

I've never been that big a fan of Fincher's work, finding the queasy opulence of films like Seven and Fight Club not to my taste. Here, he tones it down and plays his hand relatively straightforwardly about the notorious serial killer who terrorized the Bay Area in the late 60s/early 70s and vanished, never to be solved. This film on one hand contains the standard procedural drama, laying out the facts of the case which have been well covered over the years. What makes this film work and how Fincher differentiates it from banality is the thread of male obsession that runs through. Obsession and compulsion can be used to describe the killer himself, as the Zodiac claims in the film. But the obsession of knowing the truth is what really drives this film. The three other main characters, the boy scout cartoonist, the hardened, boozy reporter, and the earnest detective at some point become all consumed with the details of the case and are unable to let it go. The performances of the three, Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr., perfectly embody the determination and obsession that come with wanting to know what happen. They perfectly stand in for the audience as everybody wants to know who the Zodiac was and why he did what he did. But Fincher also succeeds in not really answering anything. The film wants to tag Arthur Leigh Allen as the Zodiac but all the psychical evidence in the case cannot be linked to him. The film doesn't have any more answers by the end than when it started. The strength of the film is that it can still be effective even though the entire course of it was a search for answers and it turned up nothing.

Fincher as the director here is a near perfect match. Someone who is notoriously detail obsessive as he fits the overall theme of the film perfectly. No detail in matching the period of the early 70s is spared all the way down to the studio cards at the beginning of the film. I've found Fincher's style to be a little overbearing in the past, but with this film, it fits consistently with the theme of the film.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2006) [6]

I always have an issue with people making movies about a foreign culture. Not to get all theoretical but the idea of "the other" always pops up in American cinema when addressing other cultures. This is always more true about the Orient (see Edward Said). While I don't begrudge Eastwood for tackling the battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese perspective, I was wary of this film to say the least. I have no real interest in seeing Flags of Our Fathers so I have no counterpoint to compare to this film. It's well made and is certainly stronger in its first half. By the end however, it becomes too repetitive in its themes. Everything always comes back to the Japanese fighting to their death, the honor of dying coming above survival. We get the character of Saigo to be the argument of this point. The problem with him is that I think Eastwood and Haggis are making him the rational, and therefore American voice in the film. From a Western way of thinking, no soldier would would think of committing suicide on the battlefield. Even though they may not have intended for him to be this way, Saigo is there to show this idea of the other. It just seems to emphasize this displacement of thinking between American and Japanese thought of warfare. Eastwood has made a good standard war film but these ideas keep poking around my head as I watch it. Other critics say that the Americans are the enemy in this film but not really. Outside of Saigo and General Kuribayashi, there is no strong identification with the Japanese side. Even though the film is of the Japanese fight of Iwo Jima, Eastwood can't keep an American perspective out of it. He may be reverential to the Japanese, but he still makes the viewer question why they would fight the way they did. It's not something that makes the film bad, but it leaves some holes that are never really filled.

Death of a President

Death of a President (Gabriel Range, 2006) [4]

Contrary to what the right wing would want you to believe about this film, there really isn't anything that sensationalistic about it. It's not a venomous screed against Bush but is rather trying to be a sober piece of what if alternative history. The problem is that it's a pretty boring film bogged down by too many cloying characters and themes. The history that Range and his collaborators throw up is lazy and pretty far-fetched; it's a kind of wish fulfilment for these Brits of what America should do. Well, most people in America are lazy and apathetic, so even though they say they don't like the war in Iraq, there's not going to be mass protests in the streets anytime soon by ones other than those who already have. The situation with the protesters doesn't ring true all the way down to the loony anarchists that are supposedly leading this. Even worse are the interviews with actors who are clearly trying too hard to be dignified. I found out afterwards that these actors were not told the entire plot of the film which explains why nothing involving the talking head pieces flows smoothly. The only part of the film that has any true resonance is in the aftermath of the assassination, where a President Cheney preys on the fear and mourning of a nation to pass even more draconian laws and the real truth of what happened is never explained because of political expediency. By that point this rolls around the film had no chance to redeem itself. That and its told in such an blunt way that it saps all the drama out of the film.

The Good German

The Good German (Steven Soderbergh, 2006) [5]

For all the technical and aesthetic savvy Soderbergh uses in this film, the story, characters, and the film itself still ring hollow. There's no doubt Soderbergh is an expert director, and the template he lays down stylistically here is impressive. The film was shot the exact same way film noirs of the late 1940s would have been shot, from the sets, lighting, fixed lenses and even the matte screen for driving sequences. While it's an achievement with an impressive amount of work and detail put into it, to me it seems to be all flash and no substance. The story, while following the meandering film noir template, is too convoluted and utterly boring. The film limps its way towards the conclusion, with only temporary bits of interest to me. For a film so heavily indebted to its style, there is a clear lack of strong or lasting images. It all looks good but beneath its exterior shine is a hollow core. The images and the characters pass by without creating a strong bond with the viewer. No performance here stands out, even though Clooney's character personally fits the style of his acting, which is never very good. Tobey Maguire and Cate Blanchett disappoint for the most part. Classic film noir is not really about story or even images that much, even though they're important elements. What makes film noir great are characters and this film sorely lacks any of conviction. Grit is always better than glitz and this film lakes the former.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (John Huston, 1948) [9]

What is so refreshing about this film even after so many years have past is that , for a film considered the equivalent of a blockbuster for its time, it is so dark and dour. Of course time has made famous two elements of the film that really aren't its most important aspects: the "We don't need no stinkin' badges" line (which is incorrectly quoted) and Walter Houston's much parodied dance. These are celebrated more than the film, which in itself, isn't really something to be. For a major studio picture of the era, it's certainly an anomaly, with actual location shooting and a completely unlikable protagonist. It's a film that could only be made because of who was associated with it. John Huston wrote and directed and doesn't spare the bleak nature of the novel. His direction is exceptional, capturing the harsh, desolate landscape as easily as the harsh emotional nature of the film. The adventure/treasure aspect of the story only sets up the real crux of the film: what materialism and greed do to the true nature of man. Bogart's Fred Dobbs is the ultimate example of the poisoning of greed. As the film progresses, Dobbs becomes more and more paranoid and irrational until he meets his untimely end. He is a completely unlikable character, full of flaws and awful character traits. It plays so completely off of the archetypes of films of that era that it's no wonder the film was a commercial disappointment. It's an overwhelmingly impressive performance by Bogart and proves he an actor beyond being the tough guy type. What is also impressive is that the good guys don't save the day; the film ends on failure on one level. It's this failure of material fortune that finally makes the characters reveal that their happiness exists outside of the treasure. It's a mixed ending, but Huston sells it by his near flawless direction.

The Passenger

The Passenger (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1975) [7]

Camus' The Stranger kept running through my mind while viewing this. They both take place in the overbearing desert of North Africa, both are overtly existentialist, and in each the protagonists make choices with no real explanation much beyond they did what they did. I'm a fan on Antonioni (L'Avventura being one of my favorite films) but his films always raise questions and never really answer them. Here, Jack Nicholson plays David Locke, a reporter who assumes the identity of a man he befriends in a remote hotel. He proceeds to be caught up in the man's profession of an arms dealer and attempting to avoid his old journalism colleagues and government men who want him dead. What is never really explained why David Locke makes this decision. Nicholson throughout the film plays it the same each way; he's not any different as an arms dealer than he was a reporter. More than likely that's the point Antonioni wishes to make, that identity cannot overtake the true soul of a man. But then again plot has never been the focus of his films. They always deal more with the relationship between man and the spaces he occupies, and the quiet gaps held within. That's no different here as there are tremendous shots of Nicholson alone against the desert, and the final scene. Even that being said, the questions left unanswered still eat at me afterwards. The Maria Schneider character, while being sort of an enabler for Locke, has just as many questions. My wanting to know the answers and not getting much, like in The Stranger, leave me conflicted on just how to feel about this.

Swimming to Cambodia

Swimming to Cambodia (Johnathan Demme, 1987) [9]

Spalding Gray is a fantastic storyteller. That's what makes this film successful. A filmed monologue more than not would be pretty boring unless the person talking can keep your attention. Gray does this not by being over-dramatic but by being able to blend the various threads of his monologue into something that is funny, entertaining, and enlightening. He can go from the somber history of Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge genocide to his own self-aggrandized film role to the seedy sexual underworld of Thailand as cleanly and easily as anyone could. What also works in this film's favor is that Demme doesn't attempt to do too much to punch up the film. It doesn't need anything beyond some occasional lighting and sound effects. The power of the film rests entirely with Gray's words. He places just the right amount of reverence and somber remembrance of the horrors that occurred in Cambodia with his own humorous personal experiences. Overall, it creates a film that while no means aesthetically adventurous, is something that was well worth viewing.

Tokyo Olympiad

Tokyo Olympiad (Kon Ichikawa, 1965) [8]

With the Olympics now becoming such a media saturated and commercial highlight reel, it's incredibly refreshing to see this film, which treats the games and the games themselves, are treated as something more reserved than the bloated spectacle it now has become. If someone wanted to do what Ichikawa did for the games in Bejing next year, it would be on deaf ears. Any artistry that were in the Olympics have long been replaced by cheating, professionals, and massive capitalism. This film shows the games as what they're original intention was: as pure sport. Ichikawa isn't focused on winners or losers; sometimes the winner of the event covered is never even mentioned. Missing that doesn't really matter here as the power of the images on the screen trumped individual achievement and medal counts. There are moments here of pure gold in terms of images in all their CinemaScope glory. The Criterion transfer, as always, is flawless. While the images stand on their own, Ichikawa also has an underlying story of how the Olympics are the true bastion of peace for the world, being especially sure to mention the games that were cancelled by war. Tokyo Olympiad is a true celebration of the positive competitive nature of humanity, win or lose. The images find all the right things: the kinetic energy of the 100 meter dash, the pure artistry of gymnasts, and in the film's greatest strength, the psychical and mental agony of running a marathon. The only thing that brings this film down (just slightly) is the manic narration. It's just not necessary with the craftsmanship the images show.

Little Children

Little Children (Todd Field, 2006) [5]

There are points in this film where it really moves along and I think to myself, this is a pretty good film. And then there are times when it all comes crashing down into sanctimonious babble and sledgehammer symbolism. I get it. Sarah and Brad are little children themselves, behaving on the same selfish level as their kids. Brad's wife makes PBS documentaries hence the Frontline style narration which is smug and should have been cut out completely. Everyone talks of castrating the pervert so he does it himself. These points, for lack of a more eloquent term, piss me off, more than any film I've seen since Crash. In his review, the Hack takes this film to task as being moralistic and reactionary but I don't know if I really see it that way. I don't find Field to be condemning these characters even though I must admit that I find them fairly unlikable for the most part. That seems to be the m.o. for the film; none of these characters have their heads in the right place. They're supposed to be looking after their children but I don't think Field and Perrotta place any moralistic hierarchy on anyone. They appear to be just as critical as the stereotypical suburban moms in the park as the selfish main characters. The problem is that the entire story comes across as Todd Solondz light, a film harshly critical of mundane suburbia but with not enough balls to be completely venomous as Solondz or as disarmingly funny as American Beauty.

What saves the film enough for me to give it a respectable grade is that I think that Field formally constructed a film that isn't that bad. It's a bit long but when the narration goes, it becomes a film that is worthwhile in little bits. Kate Winslet as Sarah rises above the lazy suburban moms around her and shows a character that realizes she's in losing situation. There are still times I don't like her character but she makes it go down easier than the others. And the character I ended up having the most sympathy for is Ronnie, who portrayed by Jackie Earle Haley, has a childlike vulnerability (get it?) underneath a truly creepy exterior. He's a man at the will of his own troubling psychology and the hysteria surrounding him. The end loses me completely but up until that point he could be seen as the only character I could actually have sympathy for. And I don't know if that's what Field was going for.

Monthly Listening Post - July 2007

Having Bonnaroo on the mind for the whole month of June keeps me from compiling a thorough listening post for that month, so July's is a bit early. On the festival front, it's been announced that Rage Against the Machine will be one of the headliners for Vegoose Halloween weekend in Las Vegas with another rumor from Britain's NME.com saying that Smashing Pumpkins and Red Hot Chili Peppers will be the other headliners. As someone who's been to both Vegooses so far, I think that rumor's pretty unlikely seeing that there are three headline caliber acts for a two-day festival. Plus, I think the other headliner would have to be from the jamband universe, a la Widespread Panic or maybe The White Stripes seeing how big a crowd they attracted at Bonnaroo. I would be interested in seeing Rage but the other two bands don't interest me at all. That's all beside the point; here are my choices for this month:

Ryan Adams - Easy Tiger
The White Stripes - Icky Thump
The Avett Brothers - Emotionalism
Blitzen Trapper - Wild Mountain Nation
Moby Grape - Listen! My Friends (In my opinion, they could have been a legendary band but they got screwed over with crazy marketing by their label and Skip Spence did have a nervous breakdown.)

Not Enough Rocketsauce

Tenacious D & the Pick of Destiny (Liam Lynch, 2006) [4]

Tenacious D's shorts on HBO were near perfection, capturing all the ridiculous subplots and self-reference in little tiny bits. Sadly, that's where the strength of the D lies. In short intervals it's funny but it never translates into consistency over the 90 plus minutes of this film. What works about Tenacious D is that both Jack Black and Kyle Gass commit themselves so much into the cheesy stereotypes of metal and all its pre-occupation with Satan, sex, and self-grandeur that it borders on irony. With this film, in trying to create an entire back story for the band and the mythological quest for the pick of destiny, they lose a lot of the loony energy and kind of WTF?! moments that make their shorts and their album so funny. Another bad choice was not using any of the songs that were on their 2001 release in the film. On one level, it would seem to be filler and regurgitating old stuff, but songs like 'Tribute' and 'Rock Your Socks Off' give a better idea of how funny they can be more than this film did. It seems lost in a stoner haze, all the way down to the sound system parody at the beginning. Their earlier work seems more focused and thought out, which makes it funnier.