Inexplicable Movie Review: FLASH! AHHHHH!

Housekeeping portion: If you left a comment ages ago, and you just got an e-mail notification about its approval now, well… Sorry about that. And also, I’ll be doing some entries here and there, since I feel like using this as a creative outlet again. “Reactivating your Twitter and Blogger in the same week? Madness!” Absolutely!

So, for a podcast I was on this past weekend, I watched Flash Gordon (1980) for the first time. Spoiler alert – I friggin’ loved it. It was an incredibly enjoyable two hour experience, and there were two factors contributing to said enjoyment level: the incredibly light tone and the stellar soundtrack.

Tackling the first factor first, to put things eloquently… At no point are the actors in Flash Gordon completely up their own ass, like in, say, a Christopher Nolan Batman film. While I liked Nolan’s movies, the unfortunate side effect of them has been a slew of superhero movies where no fun is allowed, with the exception of Joss Whedon’s Avengers.

And even the success of that movie has seemingly given movie executives the impression that “success” is contingent on pairing a bunch of superheroes together, as opposed to making a fun popcorn movie. Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy will buck this trend, since it’s essentially using the leftover heroes, but crap like the new Spiderman and Superman movies have been grab bags of villains and heroes talking dourly to one another. The new hero movies take all of the joy and fun out of being a hero.

Therefore, it’s awesome to see Flash Gordon acting like he’s the shit in the opening five minutes of Flash Gordon, and he’s not even a superhero. He must be aware that the movie is named after him. Throughout the movie’s 120 minutes, Sam J. Jones, Max von Sydow, Timothy Dalton and Brian Blessed just chew up the scenery and spit it out, and it’s awesome. Have I mentioned that it’s awesome enough? Well, it’s awesome.

All of the effects in the movie are cheesy, especially since this came out post-Star Wars. This only adds to the movie’s appeal in my mind – This is a movie that could only have been made in the 1980s, between the effects and a color palette that ranges from neon to radioactive in most scenes.

And, oh – Queen. As I wrote down in my notes while watching this movie, “Any of the scenes with Queen’s music are awesome. God damn it, why did Freddy Mercury have to die? The music helps to distract from some of the now really bad special effects. Yet another thing that should be used in modern movies.”

FOX is allegedly doing a re-make of Flash Gordon as of April 2014, which has me worried. I will set the bar low, as I’m imagining some grisly dark tale with tons of pretty but heartless CG and a soundtrack by The Black Eyed Peas, or Gwen Stefani.

I didn’t really have a proper ending for this, so here – just listen to Queen.

David Bowie is the F-ing S

After a lot of careful thought – about 20 minutes – I've decided that if I could trade my musical career (none) with any successful artist's, it would be David Bowie. He was unquestionably cool during his musical peak, and he still is cool now, which is why shows like The Venture Brothers can cast him as the leader of the Guild of Calamitous Intent and get away with it.

In fact, David Bowie has so many hits that you probably don't realize how many hits he has. Here are hit singles and songs I've heard on mainstream radio, that you've probably also heard and never realized he did:

“Dancing in the Street.” “Modern Love.” “Blue Jean.” “Let's Dance.” “Under Pressure.” “Heroes.” “Fame.” “Golden Years.” “Knock on Wood.” “Sound and Vision.” “Young Americans.” “All the Young Dudes.” “The Man Who Sold The World.” “Changes.” “Life on Mars?” “Suffragette City.” “Rebel Rebel.” “Space Oddity.” “Starman.” “The Jean Genie.” “Never Get Old.”

That is 20 songs right there, and if some of those are debatable to you, just replace them with your personal favorites that I left out, like “Ziggy Stardust” and “Diamond Dogs.” Quite simply, you will be hard-pressed to name other bands with such a vast, expansive repertoire. Other bands or artists that I at least considered swapping places with:

- The Beatles. Like David Bowie, The Beatles have a slew of hits. However, I'm kind of narrow in my thinking; I want to trade places with just one person. And since I'm somewhat vain and egotistical, I'm not sure if I'd want to split credit like Lennon and McCartney do. Even George Harrison has at least one insanely catchy solo pop ditty.

As a result, the Beatles almost feel like an unintentional superband. McCartney is still cranking out hits by his lonesome and Lennon was a supernova once he left the group.

- Queen, Weezer and the Beastie Boys. Because they're all made up of multiple members, I have to lessen their accomplishments ever so slightly. Queen's Freddy Mercury was the closest competitor to Bowie's crown, except that I like Bowie's overall catalog a bit better. (This also overlooks that Freddy Mercury died of AIDS and liked boys.)

Queen has a lot of F'ed out, overplayed pop rock shmaltz that hasn't held up well to me. I'm specifically referring to “We Will Rock You” and “We Are The Champions,” which are always played 50 million times at any sort of sporting event.

Some of Queen's best work is also, well, downright odd. “Fat Bottom Girls” and “Bicycle Rice” are incredibly catchy tunes, but they're somewhat like Weezer (another band I mentioned in this paragrah) in that the songs won't really appeal to all audiences. They feel a bit too much like nerd rock.

The same applies to the best of Weezer's arsenal, for which the term “nerd rock” was coined, after all. I love all of their songs, from the Pinkerton tracks “El Scorcho” and “Falling For You” to the obvious pop bait like “Pork and Beans,” “Buddy Holly” and “Keep Fishin'”.

- Nirvana, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Sublime and The Doors / Jim Morrison. All of them are great, and all of them are dead, which I'm not really into. Overlooking this aspect, their premature deaths prevent them from possibly joining either the preceding or proceeding groupings...

- Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots. If we were doing this list after initial albums, based on potential, then both these bands would rank highly, much like Ben Grieve would after his stellar debut for the Oakland Athletics in 1998. Unfortunately, Pearl Jam kept making weird, artsy records instead of doing good alternative rock, and Stone Temple Pilots fizzled out as Scott Weiland got hooked on heroin.

- Beck, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails. Awesome artists, except that they're not that varied or commercial successful. If I want something besides industrial from NIN, I'm shit outta luck.

- KISS and The Eagles. The opposite of Beck and Radiohead, both these bands are hugely commercially successful, but not really that deep or critically acclaimed.

- The Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Modest Mouse, The Killers, Queens of the Stone Age, Interpol, Girl Talk and The White Stripes. All these are somewhat new bands that have had some great releases, but do they have staying power? Can they change styles and stay fresh and still stay commercial and critically awesome?