ROCK OF AGES (2012 Adam Shankman)

[tabuno]

Overall, this movie rocked and perhaps that's the problem, Rock of Ages
is for the aging film-goers. Even though I was pulled into the music
and the nice smooth and very apt script plot lining up with the rock
lyrics, apparently the general public has moved on to another
generation and another musical genre. Yes this movie had a few apparent
weaknesses, the noticeable imbalance of the number of exciting and fun
dance numbers/routines that diminished as the movie went on, Catherine
Zeta-Jones prolonged absence from film, and the rather odd, clashing
musical lyrics with the more hot and heavy sex scene on the billiards
table that really failed to capture the essence and meaning of the
music and the crucial theme of the scene. However, this musical brought
to life in exciting, strong performances the inner substance of rock.
Alec Baldwin, Tom Cruise, and Catherine Zeta-Jone with what she was
given came out in sterling characterization with a solid script solid.
The gay scene may or may not have been a generational problem for those
lived through the 80s and of course those more younger film goers
embracing homosexuality may have more likely than not stayed away from
this aging rock movie.

What is intriguing is that Rock of Ages when placed along side the more
narrow offering of the Beatle's range of music available to Across the
Universe (2007) that movie had as great and powerful reception and even
more epic scope (Vietnam War) and was better reviewed but made way less
money. Almost Famous (2000) while less of a musical than a movie about
a person who loves music, still is considered a classic that made
relatively little money at the box office. Rather in contrast to either
Chicago (2002) or Moulin Rouge (2001) instead Rock of Ages plays more
like West Side Story (1961) in its presentation. Missing is the more
atmospheric setting and period of time of Paris or the richness of the
life and death story of crime and passion, the basis of much of the
operatic, melodrama of many Broadway Musicals. In a way, Rock of Ages
is its own movie genre not based on a musical production, but based on
editing together a great musical era of its generation with a movie
storyline, along with a plethora of dance choreography.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm not boycotting your thread, tabuno. I just found ROCK OF AGES too bad to write about. I don't think this bears comparison with the musical movies you mention. I think it's inexplicable why Alec Baldwin and Paul Giamatti appeared. Russell Brand I can understand, and he has a sexy sleazy quality that fits in well. Tom Cruise just seems weird. His dialogue is mannered and tiresome, and he can't do the aging rock star the way the real ones can. I've heard some say this worked as a live theater presentation but not on screen. The two young ones are not ready for prime time. They're cute, but not star material.

[tabuno]

If Chris's way of boycotting is to actually somehow be able to offer five lines of his time and thought, I'd gladly see more of it anytime. His extensive experience and insightful perception on anything I write or anyone else's for that matter is invaluable and does anyone an honor to that person for his doing so.

I do believe that Chris may have skipped on my last comment about this movie not being a musical production in the traditional sense and that it seems to be a movie of its own kind of genre; and I would therefore tend to agree that the musical movie comparisons I made in my original commentary are not direct comparisons but are the only good musicals in which I could somehow make some musical reference to in discussing Rock of Ages. Whether or not the "two young ones" are ready or not for prime time, by the very premise of the movie that are supposed to be young and have a ways to go as polished singers, one has to start somewhere, sometime like Britney Spears.

As I do not have much of a background in music, even though my mom did receive her masters in fine arts and taught piano, apparently her genes did not transfer to me, I nevertheless was fascinated by the movie's lyrics because having grown up during the Age of Rock, I nevertheless didn't really listen to the lyrics very much nor get much in the way involved in the rock bands themselves nor the individual performers -- rock for me was more background music to accompany my life. But the way the lyrics and the script in this movie meshed so well together even more so than Across the Universe (2007) had me really enjoying many of the musical numbers.

As I also grew up during the time of Tom Cruise's ascent to stardom in Risky Business (1983) and somehow kept my distance from his Scientology background, I have come to respect him as an actor both because of his popularity but also because of some of his performances in Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and Collateral (2004). As a singer in the movie I enjoyed is rather offbeat character that seemed to askew the typical stereotype and brought his own persona to the screen and there was a sense of depth to his character that was not so blatant, but suggestive and meaningful. I don't believe that in a true musical that necessarily the audience needs to have authenticity or real - if any of the characters from Moulin Rouge (2001) or Chicago (2002) could be considered real, then perhaps Cruise's character actually hit the right notes.

[Chris Knipp]

[WARNING: Those not interested in screen disasters should avoid reading what follows.]

As usual you are too kind and praise me more than I deserve. You seem to be trying to coax me into reviewing the movie, but I can't oblige you. I'm sorry. It's too late. The experience is no longer fresh, and I'd just as soon let it continue to fade.

Rex Reed is a reviewer who's sometimes fun to read when he really lashes out at a move, and that's true this time (http://observer.com/2012/06/rock-of-ages-rex-reed-tom-cruise-alec-baldwin/). His review in the New York Observer is a lively exercise, as his pans often are, in the art of invective . In this wishy-washy age such displays are an increasingly rare pleasure.

Some examples from Rex Reed's review:


As rock musicals go, Rock of Ages can’t go fast enough. . . . I haven’t seen a movie this bad since Battlefield Earth and Howard the Duck.. . .There is no plot, but you can write the outline for the one that’s missing on your fingernail. . . . The two-minute story threatens to drag on for years, populated by amplified wack jobs shrieking lyrics that cannot be translated and spitting dialogue so filthy it can’t be repeated. . . .The audience at the screening I attended was laughing so hard I missed a lot of the sub-mental dialogue, but who could miss Alec Baldwin, in the lowest point and most embarrassing mistake of his career, bellowing “I just vomited—in my pants. It came out of my ass.” The filthy, disgusting script is by three people who should remain nameless, . . .I can understand the perverse temptation to make money by appealing to the base instincts of an ever-increasing audience of fools, but this assault on the IQ is where people with self-respect should draw the line. Rock of Ages is so bad it makes Burlesque look like an underappreciated masterpiece.--The Observer, Res Reed

Basically I agree with Reed and others that Baldwin, Giamatti, Zeta-Jones, Cruise, and even the sleazy (but clever) Russell Brand (who at leat fits in without need of hairpiece or prosthetics or props or style change) disgrace themselves by being in this picture. If I were to write a review, which I don't intend to do, I'd compare Cruise's performances in TROPIC THUNDER, MAGNOLIA, and ROCK OF AGES and try to explain why one of them works very well, one almost works, and one is an embarrassment. I can see what he was trying to do and he tries hard, as usual, but this certainly can't be mentioned in the same breath with COLLATERAL, or even EYES WIDE SHUT. I do really think the other stars' presence is inexplicable. Why this is a disaster has little to do with the cast and everything to do with the material and the director. However I would have to agree that Cruise is arresting, and gives the role more pizzazz than almost anybody else would be able to. It still feel creepy to me, and inconsistent.

Maybe this movies is better than I think it is. Go to it and see for yourself. All I can say is that I did not have a good time. I was turned off by the annoying singing scene in the bus in the very first five minutes (of which Reed says "Hate sets in early").

This could turn out to be some kind of cult movie. Really bad movies often do. But in spite of what Reed says, I don't see this as a disaster on the scale of BATTLESHIP EARTH.

I'm not a "musical person" either, in the sense of knowing much about rock or pop. However I do get the clear impression that the songs here are bad, if in some cases very popular, and also not very unified in style, a point Tom Grierson makes with authority in his IFC review (http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/06/rock-of-ages-dark-ages), which talks about the Eighties "dark ages" of "corporate" rock in detail. (I haven't seen the original musical though and neither has he, so we can't really say if or why the stage version works well enough to keep selling tickets.) But it's not too hard to understand that music by Journey and Bon Jovi, Pat Benatar and Poison, Whitesnake and Twisted Sister is not of the first rank of rock. And when Christopher Isherwood says the following of the Broadway musical when it opened in 2009, I'm pretty darn sure I wouldn't like it either:
When somebody pulls out a four-pack of Bartles & Jaymes wine coolers, the audience roars as if at a punch line of supreme perceptiveness. But when Isherwood speaks of tongue in cheek and archness, that awakens no memories of the movie.


[Grierson:] It’s not that “Rock of Ages” needs to share my opinion on these songs, but the film’s fundamental problem is that it has no sense of irony or self-awareness about this disposable music. . . .If “Rock of Ages” wants to celebrate bad music, that’s its prerogative, but I wish it at least had a basic understanding of history. The way the film tells it, ‘80s rock represented passion and authenticity in a way that other music of the time didn’t. But if you lived through the era, you knows that’s simply not true.If “Rock of Ages” wants to celebrate bad music, that’s its prerogative, but I wish it at least had a basic understanding of history. The way the film tells it, ‘80s rock represented passion and authenticity in a way that other music of the time didn’t. But if you lived through the era, you knows that’s simply not true. . .[IFC FIX, Tom Grierson][and so on]

In this context I am surprised, tabuno, that you find the use of lyrics here better or more enjoyable than ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, an imaginative film that makes use of immortal songs by the Beatles. I don't see how you can even speak of the two movies or their sound tracks (and lyrics) in the same breath. But see Grierson's whole review for a critique of the music of the period, its good and bad examples, and of the movie's muddling of the distinctions. Grierson adds:
And because there’s a sincerity to the performance of these old songs — Tom Cruise in particular is utterly dynamic as the rock god Stacee Jaxx — there comes with it a tacit approval of the music.

I don't know how that would work in the stage version, but its performances could be much more fast and loose, less calculating, and more fun. I was hoping (deceived as usual by a well-edited trailer) that ROCK OF AGES was going to be an enjoyable spoof of the extravagance and sleaze of big-hair, spandex rock. But it isn't enjoyable and isn't really a spoof. It's not anything but a mess.

Richard Corliss of Time (http://entertainment.time.com/2012/06/14/rock-of-ages-is-sometimes-fun-awful-but-mostly-its-just-awful/)wrote:
Though it has moments where it rises to fun-awful status, with a hideous giddiness that turns moviegoers into rubbernecking motorists at a crash site, it’s mostly just awful. If the film were a Broadway-bound show, it would have closed out of town. . . Rock of Ages . . . means to be nicely dirty but leaves you feeling soiled.

Joe Morgenstern of WSJ points out that for the most part Cruise's over-practiced, straining effort doesn't work. "In 'Rock of Ages' the star seems to have modeled his character on Axl Rose, but this dissolute swaggerer is a cheerless clod" and suggests that Russell Brand, "with his surfeit of warped wit, might have been terrific in the Stacee Jaxx role." I realize that the reason why Brand is the only one whose performance works is because he alone has a light touch. But Brand like the others is wasted here. And the tone is wrong. Shankman doesn't know what he's doing. As Morgenstern points out, this whole film has an earnestness that is inappropriate to this trivial, consciously trashy material. Ditto the dialogue-chewing Baldwin and the motor-mouthed Giamatti.

The METACRITIC rating of ROCK OF AGES is 47% -- a grade that means one thing: stay away. Go at your own risk. Or (preferable) choose a better way to spend your time.

[Johann]

Thanks for the thread, tabuno & Chris.
I avoid movies like this with a vengeance.
I like some musicals (Across the Universe, Phantom of the Paradise, Cry-Baby, Chicago) but this one sucks from miles away.

Catherine Zeta-Jones is a Beauty and she can sing- she does a good job from what I can tell.
The rest?
Hang your heads in utter shame.
How much were you paid to suck so HARD?

[Chris Knipp]

"Sucks from miles away" is a vivid way of putting it.

The top musicals on Broadway now are Evita, Jersey Boys, Once (made from a quite wonderful tiny Irish movie) and Newsies. Jersey Boys is about early Sixties pop, a true story. Watch the video here: http://www.jerseyboysinfo.com/. I'm sure you will have a good time at any of these shows, and they're sharp, tuneful, and well staged.

I also suspect that the stage version of Rock of Ages is fun. Not as good as those four by a long sight, but buoyed up by the glitzy absurdity of the big hair tight pants Eighties rock scene and, well, musical, because it's got music, including some tunes everybody remembers.

Seeing a live show with a live audience is a whole different experience, more suited to musical drama. A "movie musical" is an oxymoron. It's canned. And you expect it to have some semblance of verisimilitude, whereas on stage, you expect artificiality, tinsel, artifice. The transition is one that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

Adam Shankman has show-biz in his blood, and he has an understanding of staging and dance. Musically, I don't know? You have to wonder about somebody whose claim to fame seems to be a remake movie of a musical made from a movie (Hairspray). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. He is openly gay, and thanks for that, and he made "Prop 8, the Musical."

[Johann]

Rock of Ages was playing onstage in Toronto when I was there a few years ago and people were eating it up.
That music isn't rock to me. And it isn't "of the Ages" if that's what they are driving for.

Is this suppsed to be tongue-in-cheek? A joke?
Or are we supposed to take it as a serious tribute to the likes of REO Speedwagon and Pat Benatar?
Alright...
I guess sales of Def Leppard albums were lagging, and Tom Cruise gave them an injection boost.
I like a lot of 80's rock, but NONE of the bands that are highlighted in Rock of Ages.

Why not do a COOL 80's music movie?
With a soundtrack like this:

1. "Mean Man" by W.A.S.P.
2. "Hot for Teacher" by Van Halen
3. "Sharp Dressed Man" by ZZ Top
4. "Glory Days" by the Boss
5. "Show No Mercy" by Slayer

6. "Turn Me Loose" by Loverboy
7. "Take me with U" by Prince
8. "Whiplash" by Metallica
9. "Ace of Spades" by Motorhead
10. "Sea of Love" by the Honeydrippers

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for the cooler list. Obviously there was better music going on in the Eighties, and the excuse for choosing this mostly very mediocre and sometimes wholly unrelated music must have been at least in part to be tongue in cheek. What was peculiar to the Eighties according to that IFC review I cited was a corporate takeover of many aspects of the music. But there were obviously good, much better, groups. Van Halen was in the same vein, but more fun and maybe musically better with the virtuoso guitar playing and the amusingly over-the-top lead singer.

Besides those you mention, how about Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, The Police, The Pet Shop Boys, Huey Lewis & the News JC Mellencamp, Rod Stewart, The Smiths (mentioned by Isherwood in his raeview of the ROCK OF AGES Broadway musical), Spandau Ballet, Tina Turner, Tom Petty, U2, all groups or individuals who hit it big in the Eighties? They may not have been available for exploitation (or promotion). They are more significant. And the Rolling Stones were there or course and did Emotional Rescue and Start Me Up. They had hits.

I gather that the musical is definitely more tongue in cheek than the movie. In the movie subtlety and perspective got lost, leaving crudeness and self indulgence. That's my impression.

[Johann]

It's a valid question: How should this movie be taken?
Did you laugh at anything in it?
Is it just some flashy "takes" on these 80's chestnuts?

Michael Jackson's music will be mined for all kinds of projects in the future and so will Madonnas, I gather.
The Stones stand alone too. They only feel appropriate on a soundtrack to a Scorsese Classic or a Hunter S. Thompson vehicle.

The 80's had some great music, and you mentioned some great ones. I don't think Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers would allow their music to be bastardized by a movie like Rock of Ages. How good can cover songs of classic originals be done?
You have to hit it out of the park like Julie Taymor did with Across the Universe.
You cast people who can do it justice, not Tom Cruise, who just looks ridiculous here.

[Chris Knipp]

Exactly. You've figured it out, without having to sit through it as I did. But tabuno enjoyed it. So people do.

[tabuno]

It's really tickles me that Chris has the integrity to comment on what he distinctly remembers and believes worthy of commentary considering his limited time to experience so many things, including the multitude of movies. He sets his boundaries and lets the rest go. Such a philosophy is bound to lead to living to an old age.

[tabuno]

I would agree to Chris's concern that my commentary implies that Across the Universe using Beatle's melodies and lyrics somehow might not be as well incorporated into that movie as the rock music and lyrics were incorporated into Rock of Ages. It's hard to really explain but as I've mentioned before I don't believe that Rock of Ages should be considered a musical in the traditional sense. Rock of Ages seems to be more of a romantic drama that includes much more musical production than usual. What I experienced in Rock of Ages was a much more visceral experience of the underlying meaning and emotions of many of the rock music scenes being played out on the big screen and that the music, lyrics, and the scene became one in that the music and lyrics augmented the scene. With Across the Universe, however, I felt that opposite was true. That because of the Beatle's music and lyrics, the scenes were developed and helped to augment the music and lyrics and thus there was a sort of forced rhythm of the movement of the story. The story was developed around the music not matter how awkward it was and for the convenience to highlight the Beatle music. In Rock of Ages, it was the storyline that was the important essence of the movie and that the music and lyrics from which there was a much larger selection from many more different bands that were selected to help enhance the story.

[tabuno]

Evita (1996) is the only movie I've ever seen where the entire production was song, not a spoken word or dialogue in the movie as I recall. An amazing experience, one that I believe was under-rated by the public. Madonna deserves a lot of credit. A great role for her.

[Chris Knipp]

I think there are a lot of different kinds of musicals. Hence "a musical in the traditional sense" doesn't seem a necessary distinction nowadays. You can give them different names, including "rock drama," if like, but surely ROCK OF AGES isn't the first to use received songs rather than songs composed for the musical. I'm not always a huge fan of Julie Taymor, but ACROSS THE UNIVERSE was quite enjoyable and imaginative and ROCK OF AGES is neither.

Now I'm sorry I've written so much and wish I'd simply done a review of this damn movie! But I'm not convinced yet that this is worth reviewing. I will remind you that the Metacritic rating of ROCK OF AGES is a low 47%.