The Crickets (1955-2013) – 17 Stray Track Fan Albums

For those not in the know, fan albums are the attempts of me and many others to take songs and put them on an album, typically they’re made to improve upon something, such as an existing album or to take non-album tracks and put them on an album.

This article is a followup to: Buddy Holly (1949-1959) – Nine Fan Albums & Alternate History (Take 2)

With my recent Buddy Holly fan album and story project, I canonized his two proper studio albums as having happened as I didn’t want to alienate those that would prefer to enjoy the official albums as is. My plan was to continue this methodology for the post-Buddy years. On top of that, considering the fact that Jerry Allison is by far the only consistent member, I came up with some fun albums based on the logic that any song with Jerry is the Crickets. I then listened to my albums with this concept in mind. While some may still prefer listening to the official albums as they are and slotting the stray track ones in, I have found many of the official and personal sequences problematic for a few reasons: Some of these tracks are quite bad and some albums have tracks that would fit better elsewhere. Thus, I’ve decided to publish my stray track sequences here, as well as certain story ideas that can’t be reused, then I’ll write the narrative around what I think would make the best albums, with new sequences that arrange any track how I see fit.

For those that are fans of Jerry Allison or Sonny Curtis, I hope I can do them justice by accumulating so many rare recordings, especially because some are quite solid. One example is that Allison, Curtis, and famed Crickets bassist Joe B. Mauldin did some better known recordings as the Crickets, but also some obscure ones under different names. Those obscure ones are gathered and treated like just any other Cricket track.

During the Bobby Vee and later Jerry Naylor eras of the group, there is shaky and unreliable personnel info. Thus, things are listed vaguely.

Any album without a tracklist is an official album, not a construction of mine (unless where noted).

Based on some research, I think that almost every recording credited to Sonny Curtis as a solo artist prior to his 1979 solo album features the then-current Crickets lineup. There’s a few cases where either a track from a Crickets album is released as a solo Sonny single or the personnel is simply known to include them. However, his first two singles and flipsides have worse odds of featuring them, but I still wanted to include those regardless. The other oddity here is from the 1955 recordings he did. Him and Buddy Holly did six songs together. Five were released on my Buddy Holly & The Two Tones project, but one more, “Queen of the Ballroom”, was excluded due to their being a version with Buddy on vocals. This track almost definitely lacks Jerry Allison, but I didn’t want any of these early rarities to go absent from these albums, so here they are.

The primary source I used for information was Praguefrank, as well as Discogs, Nor-Va-Jak Music, and the Discography of American Historical Recordings.

The first post-Buddy lineup

The Crickets & Their Buddies Volume 2 (1959) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. Billy Walker – “On My Mind Again” (Recorded April 8th, 1957)
2. Hal Goodson & The Raiders – “Who’s Gonna Be The Next One Honey” (Recorded May 2nd, 1957)
3. Hal Goodson & The Raiders – “Later Baby” (Recorded May 2nd, 1957)
4. Johnny “Peanuts” Wilson – “I’ve Had It” (Recorded November 10th, 1957)
5. Buddy Knox – “I Think I’m Gonna Kill Myself” (Recorded January 14th, 1959)
6. Wes Bryan – “Blue Baby” (Recorded January 14th, 1959)

SIDE B

1. Billy Walker – “Viva La Matador” (Recorded April 8th, 1957)
2. Hal Goodson & The Raiders – “Why” (Recorded May 2nd, 1957)
3. Hal Goodson & The Raiders – “I Always Want To” (Recorded May 2nd, 1957)
4. Johnny “Peanuts” Wilson – “My Heartbeat” (Recorded November 10th, 1957)
5. Buddy Knox – “Just To Be With You” (Recorded January 14th, 1959)
6. Wes Bryan – “I Just Want Your Love” (Recorded January 14th, 1959)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-12)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1, 6-7, 12)
• Billy Walker – lead vocals (tracks 1, 7)
• Mike Mitchell – bongos (tracks 1, 7)
• Norman Petty – piano (tracks 1, 7)
• Vi Petty – organ (tracks 1, 7)
• Bowman Brothers – backing vocals (tracks 1, 7)
• Hall Goodson – lead vocals (tracks 2-3, 8-9)
• Graham Turnbull – lead guitar (tracks 2-3, 8-9)
• Leon Bagwell – bass (tracks 2-3, 8-9)
• Johnny “Peanuts” Wilson – lead vocals (tracks 4, 10)
• George Atwood – bass (tracks 4-5, 10-11)
• Buddy Knox – lead vocals (tracks 5, 11), guitar (tracks 5, 11)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 5, 11)
• Don Lanier – probably guitar (tracks 6, 12)
• The Roses – backing vocals (tracks 6, 12)

The Crickets – Why Did You Leave? (1960) – YouTube

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Frankie Frankenstein” (Recorded December 15th, 1958)
2. “Talk About My Baby” (Recorded November 12th, 1958)
3. “Someone, Someone” (Recorded November 21st, 1958)
4. “Why Did You Leave” (Recorded May 27th, 1959)
5. “Red Headed Stranger” (Recorded November 12th, 1958)
6. “Queen of the Ballroom” (Recorded 1954 or 1955)

SIDE B

1. “That’ll Be Alright” (Recorded December 29th, 1958)
2. “After It’s Over” (Recorded December 11th, 1959)
3. “Wrong Again” (Released April 1958)
4. “Laughing Stock” (Released April 1958)
5. “Willa Mae Jones” (Released May 1958)
6. “A Pretty Girl” (Released May 1958)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – lead vocals (tracks 1, 7), guitar (tracks 1, 7), drums (tracks 2-5, 8), backing vocals (track 4)
• Glen “Bob” Clarke – drums (tracks 1, 7)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 1-12), lead vocals (tracks 2, 5-6, 9-12), backing vocals (track 4)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1-5, 7-8), backing vocals (tracks 1, 4, 7)
• Vi Petty – piano (tracks 2-3)
• Earl Sinks – lead vocals (tracks 3-4, 8), rhythm guitar (tracks 4, 8)
• The Roses (Robert Linville, Ray Rush, David Bingham) – backing vocals (track 3)
• Buddy Holly – guitar (track 6)
• Larry Welborn – bass (track 6)
• Dudley A. Brooks – piano (track 8)
• Johnny Mann, Alan Davies, Bill Lee – backing vocals (track 8)

The Crickets – In Style With The Crickets (1960) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Earl Sinks – lead vocals (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 1-12), lead vocals (tracks 1, 7)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1-12)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-12)
• Dudley Brooks – piano (tracks 1, 2, 3, 7)
• The Roses – backing vocals (track 12)
• Tommy Allsup – rhythm guitar (tracks 1-5, 7-10)

A common issue with the one-off singers is they can’t sing very well. Bobby Vee and Johnny Burnette are personal least favorites. However, there are some gems. David Box is excellent and by far the group’s best singer that went for a Buddy Holly-vocal style. “You Made Me Love You” also has phenomenal backing vocals.

The Crickets & Their Buddies Volume 3 (1960) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. Derrell Felts – “It’s A Great Big Day” (Recorded February 13th, 1959)
2. Jimmy Bowen – “You Made Me Love You” (Recorded February 21st, 1959)
3. The Everly Brothers – “(Til) I Kissed You” (Recorded July 7th, 1959)
4. The Everly Brothers – “Oh What a Feeling” (Recorded July 7th, 1959)
5. Jack C. Smith – “Honeysuckle Rose” (Recorded 1959, Released May 1960)
6. David Box – “Don’t Cha Know” (Recorded August 11th, 1960)

SIDE B

1. Derrell Felts – “Lookie Lookie Lookie” (Recorded February 13th, 1959)
2. Jimmy Bowen – “Eenie Meenie Minnie Moe” (Recorded February 21st, 1959)
3. The Everly Brothers – “Let It Be Me” (Recorded December 15th, 1959)
4. The Everly Brothers – “Since You Broke My Heart” (Recorded December 15th, 1959)
5. Jack C. Smith – “There’ll Never Be Another” (Recorded 1959, Released May 1960)
6. David Box – “Peggy Sue Got Married” (Recorded August 11th, 1960)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-5, 7-12), rhythm guitar (track 6)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1, 6-7, 12)
• Vi Petty – piano (tracks 1, 7)
• The Roses – backing vocals (tracks 1, 7)
• Derrell Felts – lead vocals, probably guitar (tracks 1, 7)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 2-4, 8)
• George Atwood – bass (tracks 2, 8)
• Jimmy Bowen – lead vocals, guitar (tracks 2, 8)
• Don Everly – lead vocals, probably guitar (tracks 3-4, 9-10)
• Phil Everly – lead vocals, probably guitar (tracks 3-4, 9-10)
• Chet Atkins – guitar (tracks 3-4)
• Lightnin Chance – bass (tracks 3-4)
• Floyd Cramer – piano (tracks 3-4)
• Jack C. Smith – lead vocals (tracks 5, 11)
• David Box – lead vocals, lead guitar (tracks 6, 12)
• Ernie Hall – drums (track 6)
• Howard Collins – guitar (tracks 9-10)
• Barry Galbraith – guitar (tracks 9-10)
• Mundell Lowe – guitar (tracks 9-10)
• Lloyd Trotman – bass (tracks 9-10)
• Hank Rowland – piano (tracks 9-10)

Johnny Burnette & The Crickets – Dreamin’ (1960) – YouTube

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Dreamin’” (Recorded January 7th, 1960)
2. “Kaw-Liga” (Recorded January 7th, 1960)
3. “You’re Sixteen” (Recorded September 19th, 1960)
4. “I Beg Your Pardon” (Recorded September 19th, 1960)
5. “Singing The Blues” (Recorded November 29th, 1960)

SIDE B

1. “It’s My Way” (Recorded September 19th, 1960)
2. “That’s The Way I Feel” (Recorded November 28th, 1960)
3. “Little Boy Sad” (Recorded November 28th, 1960)
4. “I Love My Baby” (Recorded November 28th, 1960)
5. “(I Go) Down The River (Recorded November 28th, 1960)

PERSONNEL

• Johnny Burnette – lead vocals (tracks 1-10)
• Howard Roberts – guitar (tracks 1-2)
• Glen Campbell – guitar (tracks 1-2)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-10)
• Johnny Mann Singers – backing vocals (tracks 1-2)
• Joseph Gibbons – guitar (tracks 3-10)
• Vincent Terri – guitar (tracks 3-4, 6)
• George Callender – bass (tracks 3-10)
• Ernie Freeman – piano (tracks 3-4, 6)
• Milton Pitman – guitar (track 5, 7-10)

Johnny Burnette & The Crickets – Let’s Think About Living (1961) – YouTube, Spotify

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Let’s Think About Living” (Recorded November 29th, 1960)
2. “It’s Only Make Believe” (Recorded November 29th, 1960)
3. “Oh Lonesome Me” (Recorded November 29th, 1960)
4. “Dream Lover” (Recorded November 30th, 1960)
5. “You’re So Fine” (Recorded November 30th, 1960)

SIDE B

1. “Blue Blue Morning” (Recorded November 30th, 1960)
2. “Pledge Of Love” (Recorded November 30th, 1960)
3. “Honestly I Do” (Recorded September 22nd, 1961)
4. “Fools Like Me” (Recorded September 22nd, 1961)
5. “God, Country And My Baby” (Recorded September 22nd, 1961)

PERSONNEL

• Johnny Burnette – lead vocals (tracks 1-10)
• Joseph Gibbons – guitar (tracks 1-7)
• Milton Pitman – guitar (tracks 1-7)
• George Callender – bass (tracks 1-7)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-10)
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (tracks 8-10)
• Dick Glasser – guitar (tracks 8-10)
• Clifford A. Hils – bass (tracks 8-10)
• unknown – mandolin (tracks 8-10)

Bobby Vee & The Crickets – Rock Around With Bobby Vee (1961) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Stagger Lee” (Recorded September 12th, 1961)
2. “Party Doll” (Recorded September 13th, 1961)
3. “Come On Baby” (Recorded September 13th, 1961)
4. “Lonely Weekends” (Version 2) (Recorded September 20th, 1961)
5. “Mountain Of Love” (Recorded September 20th, 1961)

SIDE B

1. “No One Knows” (Recorded September 20th, 1961)
2. “I’m Feeling Better” (Recorded September 28th, 1961)
3. “Shanghaied” (Recorded September 1961)
4. “Keep A Knockin’” (Recorded September 1961)
5. “It’s Too Late” (Version 2) (Recorded September 1961)

PERSONNEL

• Bobby Vee – lead vocals (tracks 1-10)
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (tracks 1-7)
• Red Callender – bass (tracks 1-7)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-10)
• Cliff Crofford – lead vocals (track 7)
• Sonny Curtis, Joe B. Mauldin, Howard Roberts, Earl Palmer, Ernie Freeman, and Gene Garf have been credited as being part of both sets of Bobby Vee recordings. The main four players listed above are probably on at least most of all the Bobby Vee tracks.

Bobby Vee & The Crickets – Bobby Vee Meets The Crickets (1962) – YouTube, Spotify (Personnel matches the previous Bobby Vee album.)

Despite Bobby Vee’s recordings with Allison being credited as The Crickets, the reunion of Sonny Curtis, along with newbies Jerry Naylor and Glen Hardin, is in my eyes the closest we get to more of the Crickets sound. Mauldin is sometimes credited as being part of the group from the early to mid 60s, but that does not seem to be true. Oftentimes, other players are credited as having partaken in them. There’s some very barebones recordings from 1961 of Allison singing that I suspect were recorded with help from the Bobby Vee-era lineup, but that’s just speculation. If there had been an album of this, I would have made them a Jerry solo album, but as just three recordings, they’re included here. This album probably would have only been released like this if the band needed material quickly, as the flow isn’t great. Still, these songs, as well as the whole Naylor era, are mostly good.

The Crickets – Fell In Love With A Face (1962) – YouTube, Spotify

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Fell In Love With A Face” (Recorded February 2nd, 1962)
2. “Never Ever Told Me” (Recorded February 2nd, 1962)
3. “There’s No Better Way To Die” (Recorded February 2nd, 1962)
4. “Bottom Of The Sea” (Recorded February 2nd, 1962)
5. “I’m Not A Bad Guy” (Recorded March 9th, 1962)
6. “I Don’t Need A Friend” (Recorded September 18th, 1961)

SIDE B

1. “I Believe In You” (Recorded March 19th, 1962)
2. “The Real Thing” (Recorded June 4th, 1962)
3. “My Little Kim Ruth” (Recorded September 18th, 1961)
4. “It’s All Right With Me” (Recorded September 18th, 1961)
5. “Smooth Guy” (Recorded February 29th, 1960)
6. “So You’re In Love” (Recorded February 29th, 1960)
7. “Break It Easy” (Recorded June 19th, 1962)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, lead vocals (tracks 11-12)
• Red Callender – bass
• Jerry Allison – drums, lead vocals (tracks 6, 9-10)
• Glen D. Hardin – piano
• Ernie Freeman – possibly on piano
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 11-12)

The Naylor lineup

The Crickets – Something Old, Something New, Something Blue, Somethin’ Else (1962) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, vocals
• Red Callender – bass
• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals
• Glen D. Hardin – piano
• Glen D. Hardin and Joe B. Mauldin have sometimes been credited as playing bass. Ernie Freeman has been credited on piano.

The Crickets – Surfin’ Special (1963) – YouTube, Spotify

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “My Little Girl” (Recorded October 17th, 1962)
2. “Looking All Over Town” (Recorded October 17th, 1962)
3. “Teardrops Fall Like Rain” (Recorded October 17th, 1962)
4. “Farewell, My Bluebell” (Recorded October 23rd, 1962)
5. “The Ballad of Batman” (Recorded 1962)
6. “Batmobile” (Recorded 1962)

SIDE B

1. “Lost And All Alone” (Recorded April 3rd, 1963)
2. “Don’t Try To Change Me” (Recorded April 3rd, 1963)
3. “Surfin’ Special” (Recorded June 14th, 1963)
4. “April Avenue” (Recorded June 14th, 1963)
5. “A Harlem Girl” (Recorded July 17th, 1962)
6. “Brand New Doll” (Recorded July 17th, 1962)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, vocals
• Red Callender – bass
• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals
• Glen D. Hardin – piano
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (tracks 5-6)
• Glen D. Hardin and Joe B. Mauldin have sometimes been credited as playing bass. Ernie Freeman has been credited on piano.

The Crickets – California Sun / She Loves You (1964) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, vocals
• unknown – bass
• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals
• Glen D. Hardin – piano
• Buzz Cason – backing vocals
• Glen D. Hardin and Joe B. Mauldin have sometimes been credited as playing bass. Ernie Freeman has been credited on piano.

Despite my criticism of some of the one-off projects, this album is solid other than the Everly Brothers tracks. If it wasn’t obvious, Eddie Cochran is rivaled only by Holly himself and a few others, but that track is out of place for the Crickets. Still two great cuts, regardless.

The Crickets & Their Buddies Volume 4 (1964) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. Eddie Cochran – “Cut Across Shorty” (Recorded January 8th, 1960)
2. The Raiders – “Dardanella” (Released November 1961)
3. The Everly Brothers – “No One Can Make My Sunshine Smile” (Recorded September 20th, 1962)
4. The Everly Brothers – “Dancing On My Feet” (Recorded September 20th, 1962)
5. Lucille Starr – “The French Song” (Recorded October 24th, 1963)
6. Joe Carson – “Be A Good Girl” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)

SIDE B

1. Eddie Cochran – “Three Steps To Heaven” (Recorded January 8th, 1960)
2. The Raiders – “What Time Is It?” (Released November 1961)
3. Lucille Starr – “Sit Down And Write A Letter To Me” (Recorded October 24th, 1963)
4. The Everly Brothers – “The Facts Of Life” (Recorded January 16th, 1964)
5. Joe Carson – “Guess You Don’t Love Me Anymore” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-11) (Possibly not on track 10)
• Eddie Cochran – lead vocals, guitar (tracks 1, 7)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 1, 3-7, 9-11)
• Conrad ‘Guybo’ Smith – bass (tracks 1, 7)
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (tracks 2-4, 8)
• Unknown other musicians, possibly Bobby Keys on sax (tracks 2, 8)
• Don Everly – lead vocals, probably guitar (tracks 3-4, 10)
• Phil Everly – lead vocals, probably guitar (tracks 3-4, 10)
• Billy Strange – guitar (tracks 3-4, 10)
• Red Callendar and/or Pat Vegas – bass (tracks 3-4)
• Ray Johnson – piano (tracks 5, 9)
• Lucille Starr – lead vocals (tracks 5, 9)
• Joe Maphis – guitar (tracks 5, 9)
• Bill Pitman – guitar (tracks 5, 9)
• Wilbur Pitman – bass (tracks 5, 9)
• Herb Alpert – trumpet (tracks 5, 9)
• Joe Carson – lead vocals (tracks 6, 11)
• James Burton – guitar (tracks 6, 11)
• Billy Mize – steel guitar (tracks 6, 11)
• Bob Morris – bass (tracks 6, 11)
• Billy Armstrong – fiddle (tracks 6, 11)
• Bobby Bruce – fiddle (tracks 6, 11)
• Glen D. Hardin – piano (tracks 6, 11)
• Ray Pohlman – bass (track 10)
• Hal Blaine – drums (probably on track 10)
• Leon Russell – keyboard (tracks 10)
• Harold Cliner – trombone (track 10)
• Kenneth Shroyer – trombone (track 10)
• John Audino – trumpet (track 10)
• Anthony Terram – trumpet (track 10)

Sonny Curtis (Possibly with The Crickets) – Beatle Hits Flamenco Guitar Style (1964) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar

Likely present

• Jerry Allison – drums
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard

Tommy Allsup & The Crickets – The Buddy Holly Songbook (1964) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Lynn Bailey – bass
• Jerry Allison – drums
• George Tomsco – guitar
• Tommy Allsup – guitar
• Buzz Cason – piano

The Crickets – Surfing, Bo Diddley, and Beatles!! (1964) – YouTube

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Don’t Breathe A Word” (Recorded June 14th, 1963)
2. “Bring Back My Surfboard” (Recorded June 14th, 1963)
3. “Don’t Say You Love Me” (Recorded June 28th, 1963)
4. “A Beatle I Want To Be” (Recorded Late 1963)
5. “So Used To Loving You” (Recorded Summer 1963)
6. “Right Or Wrong” (Recorded August 1st, 1963)

SIDE B

1. “Playboy” (Recorded December 12th, 1963)
2. “(They Call Her) La Bamba” (Recorded March 23rd, 1964)
3. “All Over You” (Recorded March 23rd, 1964)
4. “I Think I’ve Caught The Blues” (Recorded August 27th, 1964)
5. “Bo Diddley Bach” (Recorded June 1964)
6. “I Pledge My Love To You” (Recorded June 1964)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums, lead vocals (track 10)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (absent from track 10)
• Red Callender – bass (absent from track 10)
• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals (absent from track 10)
• Glen D. Hardin – piano (absent from track 10)
• Buzz Cason – backing vocals, lead vocals (track 10)
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (track 10)
• George Tomsco – guitar (track 10)
• Stan Lark – bass (track 10)
• Glen D. Hardin and Joe B. Mauldin have sometimes been credited as playing bass. Ernie Freeman has been credited on piano.

“Lord Of The Manor” and the Carson tracks are the ones here I like.

The Crickets & Their Buddies Volume 5 (1968) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. Joe Carson – “Release Me” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)
2. Joe Carson – “Who’ll Buy The Wine” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)
3. The Everly Brothers – “I Used To Love You” (Recorded November 12th, 1965)
4. The Everly Brothers – “It’s All Over” (Recorded November 12th, 1965)
5. Rusty Steagall – “Motel Rooms And Coffee Shops” (Recorded March 1st, 1966)

SIDE B

1. Joe Carson – “I’ll Be There” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)
2. Joe Carson – “Fraulein” (Recorded February 10th, 1964)
3. Rusty Steagall – “Playboy Heart” (Recorded March 1st, 1966)
4. The Everly Brothers – “Lord Of The Manor” (Recorded February 27th, 1968)
5. Jammë – “Empty Feelings” (Recorded 1968)

PERSONNEL

• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-10) (Possibly not on tracks 3-4)
• Sonny Curtis – guitar (tracks 1-4, 6-7, 9)
• Joe Carson – lead vocals (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• James Burton – guitar (tracks 1-4, 6-7, 9)
• Billy Mize – steel guitar (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• Bob Morris – bass (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• Billy Armstrong – fiddle (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• Bobby Bruce – fiddle (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• Glen D. Hardin – piano (tracks 1-2, 6-7)
• Doris Hallcom – bass (tracks 3-4)
• Jim Gordon – drums (probably on tracks 3-4)
• Don Randi – harpsichord (tracks 3-4)
• Leon Russell – keyboard (track 4)
• Rusty Steagall – lead vocals (tracks 5, 8)
• Don Lanier – guitar (tracks 5, 8)
• Glen Campbell – guitar (tracks 5, 8)
• Larry Knechtel – bass (tracks 5, 8)
• Don Randi – keyboard (tracks 5, 8)
• Terry Slater – bass (track 9)
• Don Adey – lead vocals, rhythm guitar (track 10)
• Timmy Smyser – bass (track 10)
• Paul Downing – lead guitar (track 10)

These two Sonny Curtis albums, as well as some Crickets or Sonny material from around this time, are incredibly strong and deserved to have been released on Crickets albums. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that Style is the best work covered in this post, being comparable in quality with Buddy Holly.

Sonny Curtis (Possibly with The Crickets) – The 1st Of Sonny Curtis (1968) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard

Likely present

• Jerry Allison – drums

Sonny Curtis (Possibly with The Crickets) – The Sonny Curtis Style (1969) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar

Likely present

• Jerry Allison – drums
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard

Lee Dresser & The Crickets – El Camino Real (1969) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Rick Cathaway – bass
• Jerry Allison – drums
• Lee Dresser – lead vocals, guitar
• Glen D. Hardin – piano

Eric Clapton & The Crickets – Eric Clapton (1970) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Eric Clapton – lead guitar, lead vocals
• Delaney Bramlett – rhythm guitars, backing vocals
• Stephen Stills – guitars, bass (track 11), backing vocals
• Leon Russell – piano
• John Simon – piano
• Bobby Whitlock – organ, backing vocals
• Carl Radle – bass
• Jim Gordon – drums
• Bobby Keys – saxophones
• Jim Price – trumpet
• Jerry Allison – backing vocals
• Bonnie Bramlett – backing vocals
• Rita Coolidge – backing vocals
• Sonny Curtis – backing vocals

The 70s is the beginning of the downfall of the Crickets. This era is consistently okay, with this album of mostly Buddy Holly covers being one of the better efforts.

The Crickets – Rockin’ 50’s Rock’n’Roll (1970) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals, lead guitar
• Jerry Allison – drums, vocals
• Jerry Scheff – bass
• Glen D. Hardin – piano

This is one of the weaker albums I constructed simply because it spans from the mid 60s to the early 70s. It was one reason I found issue with this “stray track” idea. Note there’s two 1972 Sonny Curtis tracks I could not find: “Sunny Mornin’” and “Lights Of L.A.”.

The Crickets – Million Dollar Movie (1971) – YouTube

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Million Dollar Movie” (Recorded Mid 1968)
2. “We Gotta Get Together” (Recorded August 27th, 1964)
3. “Everybody’s Got A Little Problem” (Recorded August 28th, 1964)
4. “Now Hear This” (Recorded January 1st, 1965)
5. “Thoughtless” (Recorded January 2nd, 1965)
6. “Rave On” (Recorded January 3rd, 1965)

SIDE B

1. “A Million Miles Apart” (Recorded Mid 1968)
2. “Last Call” (Recorded July 1966)
3. “Love Is All Around” (Recorded Fall 1970)
4. “Here, There And Everywhere” (Recorded Fall 1970)
5. “Unsaintly Judy” (Recorded Spring 1971)
6. “You Don’t Belong In This Place” (Recorded Spring 1971)

PERSONNEL (Only confirmed contributions listed)

• Jerry Naylor – lead vocals (tracks 4-6)
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar (tracks 1, 7-12), lead vocals (tracks 7-12)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 2-6) (Probably on every track), lead vocals (track 2)
• Glen D. Hardin – (Possibly plays piano on tracks 1, 7-12)
• Buzz Cason – lead vocals (tracks 2-3)
• Tommy Allsup – guitar (tracks 2-6)
• George Tomsco – guitar (track 2)
• Stan Lark – bass (track 2)
• Lynn Bailey – bass (tracks 3-6)

Johnny Rivers & The Crickets – L.A. Reggae (1972) – YouTube

PERSONNEL

• Joe Osborn – bass
• Miss Bobbye Hall – congas, bongos
• Jerry Allison and/or Jim Gordon – drums
• Dean Parks and/or Larry Carlton – guitar
• Herb Pedersen and/or Michael Georgiades – backing vocals
• Gary Coleman – percussion
• Larry Knechtel and/or Jim Webb and/or Michael O’Martian – piano/organ
• Jackie Kelso and/or Jim Horn – saxophone
• Chuck Finley – trumpet
• Johnny Rivers – lead vocals, rhythm guitar

Yes, that’s Ric Grech.

The Crickets – Bubblegum, Pop, Ballads & Boogie (1973) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals, lead guitar
• Ric Grech – lead vocals, bass
• Jerry Allison – lead vocals, drums
• Glen D. Hardin – vocals, keyboards

The Crickets – Remnants (1973) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals, lead guitar
• Ric Grech – lead vocals, bass, piano
• Jerry Allison – lead vocals, drums
• Nick Van Maarth – lead vocals, guitar
• Albert Lee – lead vocals, guitar, piano
• Steve Krikorian – vocals

A Long Way from Lubbock is an officially released album, though one frustrating issue is that it pointlessly takes recordings from the previous two 1973 albums. There were two much better ideas that could have been used for a follow up. There’s basically one album’s worth of strays listed below that have no overlap with previous albums. The other idea is to cut out the dud tracks and make these albums all much shorter. The Remnants album is bizarrely forty minutes long. The album listed below was all recorded in 1973, except for “Carolyn Walking Away”, where that’s just a guess.

The Crickets – A Long Way from Lubbock (1973) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “That Is Not What I Need”
2. “Carolyn Walking Away”
3. “Rock’n Roll (I Gave You The Best Years Of My Life)” (Recorded October 1973)
4. “My Mama Sure Left Me Some Good Old Days” (Recorded October 1973)
5. “An American Love Affair”
6. “He’s Got A Way With Women”

SIDE B

1. “You Make It Way Too Hard”
2. “Ain’t Protestin’” (Demo version)
3. “Ain’t Protestin’” (Band version)
4. “Bony Moronie”
5. “I Like Your Music”
6. “Now & Then It’s Gonna Rain”

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals, lead guitar
• Ric Grech – lead vocals, bass, piano
• Jerry Allison – lead vocals, drums
• Nick Van Maarth – lead vocals, guitar
• Albert Lee – lead vocals, guitar, piano
• Steve Krikorian – vocals

Lee Dresser & The Crickets – To Touch The Wind (1975) – Can’t find

PERSONNEL

• Lee Dresser – lead vocals (tracks 1-12), guitar, banjo, harmonica (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Larry McNeely – banjo (tracks 1-12)
• Pat Smith – bass (tracks 1, 7)
• Al Garibaldi – drums (tracks 1, 7)
• Dan Crary – guitar (tracks 1, 7)
• Pete Jolly – piano (tracks 1, 7)
• Red Rhodes – steel guitar (tracks 1, 7)
• Joe Osborn – bass (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Jerry Allison – drums, hambone (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Ron Dasaro – organ (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Doug Gilmore – hambone (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Glen D. Hardin – piano (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• Al Perkins – steel guitar (tracks 2-6, 8-12)
• The Teesdale Street Choir – backing vocals (tracks 2-6, 8-12)

Originally this album spanned into the 80s with a few solo Sonny singles. Two issues with that is that those 80s tracks almost certainly lacked Jerry Allison and Sonny’s real solo career where Jerry was absent is quite confusing. Many of the released albums are unavailable online and I later found more stray tracks. There’s also some repeats from one album to another. Thus, you can think of this as the last release of his for quite a while with Jerry before they went separate ways into less documented music, though it’s quite short. I liked that the 1973 strays perfectly make up their own album, while this is everything after in the 70s. Note that a track called “When It’s Just You And Me” is from 1975, but isn’t accessible. If it was, it would make this one a bit longer.

The Crickets – Reunion (1978) – Archive.org (All tracks recorded in 1978 except where noted otherwise.)

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “It’s Only A Question Of Time” (Recorded July 10th, 1975)
2. “Where’s Patricia Now” (Recorded February 1976)
3. “The Breeze”

SIDE B

1. “Mulholland Drive”
2. “It’s Only Rock’n’Roll”
3. “Cruise In It”
4. “Rock Around With Ollie Vee”

PERSONNEL (Only confirmed contributions listed)

• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals, lead guitar (tracks 1-7)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 3-7)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 3-7)

Mauldin, Curtis, Jennings, and Allison

Note that half of Rollin’ and a 1982 track called “Dream Well All Of You Children” are missing. Also, the three Sonny Curtis albums listed below are not fan albums and instead are official. I’m writing out the tracklisting to make it more explicit what I do have. The personnel notes will be absent for solo Sonny due to this article being more about Jerry.

Sonny Curtis (1979) – Archive.org (Missing Two Tracks)

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “The Cowboy Singer”
2. “Walk Right Back”
3. “So Used To Loving You”
4. “Tennessee”
5. “Do You Remember Roll Over Beethoven”

SIDE B

1. “It’s Not Easy Being Fifteen”
2. “I Fought The Law”
3. “I’ll Stay With You” (Can’t find)
4. “Cheatin’ Clouds” (Can’t find)
5. “Ain’t Nobody Honest”

Sonny Curtis – Love Is All Around (1980) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Love Is All Around”
2. “You Made My Life A Song”
3. “Eager For The Edge”
4. “The Real Buddy Holly Story”
5. “Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover”

SIDE B

1. “Wild Side Of Life”
2. “The Cowboy Singer” (Same recording as on the 1979 album)
3. “I Fought The Law” (Same recording as on the 1979 album)
4. “Walk Right Back” (Same recording as on the 1979 album)
5. “The Clone Song”

With one exception, the personnel for the Waylon Jennings albums won’t be listed due to how confusing it all is.

Jessi Colter, Waylon Jennings & The Crickets – Ridin’ Shotgun (1981) – Archive.org

Sonny Curtis – 1981 and 1982 loose tracks – Archive.org

1. “Good Ol’ Girls” (From Rollin’ (1981))
2. “Married Women” (From Rollin’ (1981))
3. “Rollin’” (From Rollin’ (1981))
4. “More Than I Can Say” (From Rollin’ (1981))
5. “I Like Your Music” (From Rollin’ (1981))
6. “The Christmas Song” (Chestnut Roasting On A Open Fire) (1981)
7. “Together Alone” (1982)
8. “Love is All Around” (From Sonny Curtis (2007)) (Unsure of recording date, very roughly guessing 1982)
9. “Hung Up In Your Eyes” (From Sonny Curtis (2007)) (Unsure of recording date, very roughly guessing 1982)
10. “My Worst Enemy” (From Sonny Curtis (2007)) (Unsure of recording date, very roughly guessing 1982)
11. “Party Of The First Part” (From Sonny Curtis (2007)) (Unsure of recording date, very roughly guessing 1982)

Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson & The Crickets – WWII (1982) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Waylon Jennings – guitar, vocals
• Jerry Allison – drums
• Gene Chrisman – drums, percussion
• Chips Moman – guitar
• Reggie Young – guitar
• Willie Nelson – guitar, vocals
• Bobby Emmons – keyboards
• Johnny Christopher – guitar, backing vocals
• Bobby Wood – piano
• Toni White – backing vocals
• Mike Leech – bass
• Jerry Bridges – bass

Waylon Jennings & The Crickets – It’s Only Rock & Roll (1983) – YouTube, Spotify

Waylon Jennings & The Crickets – Never Could Toe the Mark (1984) – YouTube, Spotify

Most of the Payne stuff feels like a parody of the band, with the new lead singer doing a bad Holly impression. It’s a shame Allison and Mauldin didn’t make Crickets albums with Waylon Jennings or Sonny, especially because most of the Crickets’ 60s and 70s songs lack Mauldin and now that he’s back they’re either inactive or making such poor material.

Gordon Payne & The Crickets – Jigger, Crank & Jive (1988) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Back Home In Tennessee” (Released 1988)
2. “Blackmail” (Released 1988)
3. “I Can’t Hold On Any Longer” (Released 1988)
4. “For A While We Helped Each Other Out” (Released 1988)

SIDE B

1. “I Got A Woman” (Recorded Late 70s-Early 80s)
2. “She’s Got A Right To Cry” (Recorded Late 70s-Early 80s)
3. “Do You Ever Think Of Me” (Recorded Late 70s-Early 80s)
4. “Let’s Do It Again” (Released 1988)

PERSONNEL

• Gordon Payne – lead vocals, lead guitar (tracks 1-8)
• Jerry Bridges – bass (tracks 5-7)
• Jerry Allison – drums (tracks 1-8)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1-4, 8)

The Payne lineup

Gordon Payne & The Crickets – T-Shirt (1988) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Gordon Payne – lead vocals, lead guitar
• Jerry Allison – drums
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass

Sonny Curtis – 1985-1990 loose tracks – Archive.org

1. “I Think I’m In Love” (From Spectrum (1987), though recorded in 1985)
2. “Now I’ve Got A Heart Of Gold” (From Spectrum (1987), though recorded in 1985)
3. “Monetta” (Recorded 1990)
4. “Evening Shade” (Recording date guessed 1990)
5. “I Fought The Law” (Recorded June 1990 in Torino, ITA)

Sonny Curtis – No Stranger to the Rain (Released September 1990) – Archive.org

1. “I’m No Stranger to the Rain” (Possibly the same recording that was on the previous album, Spectrum)
2. “Hello Mary Lou”
3. “You’re the Lesson I Never Learned”
4. “When Amarillo Blows”
5. “Back When Has Been Lover”
6. “I Saved My Last Name for You”
7. “Bad Case of Love”
8. “Think It Over”
9. “That’ll Be the Day”
10. “More Than I Can Say”
11. “Well, All Right”
12. “Rock Around with Ollie Vee”
13. “Midnight Shift”

Gordon Payne & The Crickets – Double Exposure (1993) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Gordon Payne – lead vocals, probably guitar
• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar
• Jerry Allison – drums
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard

Too Much Monday Morning is a shockingly good album that goes to show how much a shame it was that this lineup wasn’t more often all together. Naylor, and especially Sinks and Box are good, but Curtis’ voice feels more at home with the Crickets. After this album, the band would go back to being an oldies act, often redoing their own songs needlessly. Admittedly, not many people are out asking for the next hot Sonny Curtis and the Crickets album.

The Crickets – Too Much Monday Morning (1996) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, lead vocals
• Jerry Allison – drums, lead vocals
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard
• Nanci Griffith – guest vocals

Mauldin and Curtis together again

Nanci Griffith & The Crickets (1996) – YouTube, Spotify

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Walk Right Back” (Recorded May 29th, 1996)
2. “I Still Miss Someone” (Recorded May 29th, 1996)
3. “The Streets Of Baltimore” (Recorded June 17th, 1996)
4. “I Live On A Battlefield” (Recorded Fall 1996)

SIDE B

1. “I Fought The Law” (Recorded Fall 1996)
2. “Maybe Tomorrow” (Recorded Fall 1996)
3. “I’ll Move Along” (Recorded Fall 1996)
4. “Morning Train” (Recorded Fall 1996)

PERSONNEL

• Nanci Griffith – lead vocals (tracks 1-8), guitar (tracks 3-5, 7-8), backing vocals (tracks 1-3)
• James Hooker – piano (tracks 1-7), backing vocals (tracks 4-6), organ (track 8)
• Doug Lancio – guitar (tracks 1-8), backing vocals (tracks 4, 6)
• Sonny Curtis – lead vocals (tracks 1, 5), guitar (tracks 1-2, 5, 7), backing vocals (track 6), bass (track 8)
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass (tracks 1-5)
• Jerry Allison – percussion (tracks 4, 7-8), drums (tracks 1-3, 5-6)
• Rodney Crowell – lead vocals, guitar (track 2)
• Darius Rucker – backing vocals (track 3)
• Jim Sonefeld – backing vocals (track 3)
• John Prine – lead vocals (track 3)
• Philip Donnelly – guitar (tracks 3, 5, 7-8)
• Pat McInerney – drums (tracks 4, 6-8), percussion (tracks 3-6), backing vocals (track 6), whistle (track 8)
• Ron De La Vega – backing vocals (tracks 4, 6), bass (tracks 3, 5-8), cello (tracks 3, 6)
• Lee Satterfield – backing vocals (tracks 4, 8)

The Crickets & Their Buddies (2004) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, lead vocals
• Jerry Allison – drums
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass
• Glen D. Hardin – keyboard
• The Everly Brothers, Eric Clapton, Nanci Griffith, Bobby Vee, Albert Lee, Waylon Jennings, Johnny Rivers – guest vocals
• Many, many more guest performers. Only ones that have previously worked with the Crickets are listed here.

Mike Berry & The Crickets – About Time Too! (2005) – YouTube, Spotify

PERSONNEL

• Sonny Curtis – lead guitar, rhythm guitar, lead vocals
• Jerry Allison – drums, lead vocals
• Joe B. Mauldin – bass, backing vocals
• Mike Berry – lead vocals, backing vocals
• Chas Hodges – piano, backing vocals, guitar

Chad Hodges & Jerry Allison – Before We Grow Too Old (2007) – Archive.org

PERSONNEL

• Jack Clement – dobro
• Jerry Allison – drums, lead vocals (tracks 7, 10)
• Chas Hodges – piano, lead vocals, guitar

There seems to have been a whole album of John Beland tracks recorded, but this is the only one I could find. The Limitations’ “Well… All Right” I also can’t find.

The Crickets & Their Buddies Over The Years (2013) – Archive.org

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. J.J. Cale – “I’m A Gypsy Man” (Released 1976)
2. John Beland – “True Love Never Runs Dry” (Recorded 1978)
3. Bobby Vee – “Buddy Holly Medley” (Recorded April 16th, 1989)
4. Dale Hawkins – “Rain On The Roof” (Recorded 1990s)
5. Dale Hawkins – “Well… All Right” (Recorded 1990s)

SIDE B

1. Dale Hawkins – “So What” (Recorded 1990s)
2. Dale Hawkins – “I Had A Dream” (Recorded 1990s)
3. Lonnie Donegan – “Skiffle” (1999)
4. Lonnie Donegan – “I Don’t Wanna Lose You” (1999)
5. Chas And Dave – “Look At Me” (2013)

PERSONNEL

• • J. J. Cale – lead vocals, guitar, piano (track 1)
  • Bill Raffensperger – bass guitar (track 1)
  • Jimmy Karstein – drums (track 1)
  • Bill Boatman – rhythm guitar (track 1)
  • Jerry Allison – percussion (tracks 1, 9), drums (tracks 3-7, 10), triangle (track 8)
  • Bobby Vee – lead vocals, guitar (track 3)
  • Gordon Payne – lead vocals, guitar (track 3)
  • David Falconi (Might be misspelling his name) – keyboard (track 3)
  • Joe B. Mauldin – bass (track 3), possibly plays bass on tracks 4-7
  • Dale Hawkins – lead vocals, guitar (tracks 4-7)
  • Ray Flack – lead guitar (tracks 4-7)
  • Joe Osborn – possibly plays bass on tracks 4-7
  • unknown – piano (tracks 4-7)
  • Joell Le Sonier – accordion (tracks 8-9)
  • Margot Buchanan – backing vocals (tracks 8-9)
  • Sam Brown – backing vocals (tracks 8-9)
  • Sonia Jones – backing vocals (tracks 8-9)
  • Gerry Conway – drums (tracks 8-9)
  • Brian Hodgson – bass (track 8)
  • Paul Henry – guitar (track 8)
  • Rufus Thibodeaux – fiddle (tracks 8-9)
  • Nick Payne – harmonica (track 8)
  • Lonnie Donegan – lead vocals, rhythm guitar (tracks 8-9)
  • Sticky Wicket – washboard (track 8)
  • Vic Pitt – bass (track 9)
  • Chad Hodges – performer (track 10)
  • Dave Peacock – performer (track 10)
  • Albert Lee – guitar (track 10)
  • Track 2’s personnel information is especially confusing, but it does seem Allison, Mauldin, and Curtis are on it in some capacity.

This is a passion of mine and if one person likes what I do, I’ll feel honored. I like suggestions on what artist to cover next, so if you know of one you’d like me to look at, feel free to suggest ‘em!

The Dark Knight (2008) Review

While Batman Begins feels edited by a blender, The Dark Knight virtually corrects that and all its other issues. It still contains some segmented story elements, as if we’re covering multiple issues of a comic that tell one overall story. As such, certain characters are much more prominent in specific segments, though this plays into the general themes of the story and the overall “plan” of the main antagonist, that chaos can come in different ways and come to haunt us in perhaps the one way we are vulnerable.

Heath Ledger as the Joker is wonderfully chaotic and less controllable than it may seem. This even comes through in little moments. He at one point asks for half of the mobs’ money, but he doesn’t even want it just to use it, he wants to cause trouble by making a claim on it. The Joker barely appears in the movie and he’s all the more intimidating for it. This is mirrored early on when he was essentially hiding in plain sight. He often is getting other people to do his bidding. He has many quotable phrases about how fickle people are, which admittedly are trying a bit too hard to be smart. Less would be more with those. We should only be suggested about how the Joker thinks. This also follows on from the problem of exposition, which is still here, but much better managed.

Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne gives a much stronger performance than last film, also going for a less is more approach. He is focused on less, being much more about watching the situation and getting down to business. Thus, this does somewhat suggest that Bale lacked the range to be more complicated, though he really doesn’t need to be here. Him trying to remain stoic while having a slight sense of fear and uncertainty on his face speaks wonders. A big theme of this movie is letting you essentially come to your own conclusion on its events. This is even represented in admittedly one of the weaker scenes of a group of people debating if Batman should turn himself in or not, where the dialogue and actors are a bit too over the top.

Part of what’s so great about the Joker is how he really is a genius. He thinks several steps ahead, with no one else able to keep up. As I’ll discuss in spoilers, this movie is better if you erase Begins, but one positive is that characters like Gary Oldman as James Gordon drop much confidence or assuredness, coming to terms with just how little control they have. This even plays into Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, wherein the film subverts how last installment and many other movies include a hero getting the girl at the end. The situations in this movie are often hopeless, with it hard to imagine how anyone would escape and it thrilling to see what people do. This is complimented by a darker visual look that’s not overpowering. The scene of Batman at the top of a building is particularly stylish, as well as the famous one of the truck.

The different focuses of the movie subtly play into each other and make for escalating tension. The story as a whole is more about showing the full area, focusing less on a specific character. As such, a big character piece on someone like Batman would distract. A lot of this movie feels like a police crime drama that happens to have superhuman elements and more action, being about the situation than anyone. As an example, Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is focused on more as a symbol than a character. As a character, he is surprisingly uncomplicated.

SPOILERS

The most convoluted part of the movie is Harvey going bad. While there is an attempted explanation of him going crazy and blaming people like Gordon, it’s all just a bit too out of bounds of what we know of him. Maybe there could’ve been some way where Harvey felt the only chance to save the day was to do something that would get innocent people killed, but take fewer risks? What if he advocated for the evacuation ferry with the prisoners to be blown up?

In mostly believable situations, everyone breaks their own rules. There’s often the debate of whether or not to make any given decision, typically because there’s lives at risk. This challenges the idea of a moral code. Batman and the Joker are positioned as polar opposites, as Batman seems to be the least corruptible and most moral, while the Joker is the least moral and only incorruptible as there is nothing to corrupt. The Joker even often puts himself in a position where he could be killed, probably because he doesn’t really care if he is. While the Joker is apprehended eventually, he does “win” on multiple levels.

He achieves his main goal of breaking Harvey Dent, but he also breaks Bruce Wayne in a more subtle way. For starters, it seems Bruce would be malleable when it comes to trying to save Rachel. He clearly cares more about her than Harvey. Beyond the more obvious example of Batman beating the Joker more brutally than was likely necessary, he directly kills Harvey at the end, which is something he was opposed to ever doing and never did before. He’s also symbolically killing his hope of correctly finding a morally upstanding person that can “take his place”, which suggests he won’t ever be able to retire, at least with assuredness the city is in good hands. This effect is a bit dampened by Bruce being responsible for deaths in Batman Begins, even where in the one at the end, he could’ve just as easily had the victim get arrested, though he instead chose not to save them.

Say what you will about Batman, if he wasn’t here everyone would be screwed. The notable example is it seems the Joker was really going to blow up the ferries, with Batman stopping that from happening. Part of how he gets his information is through shady means. The most realistic is his technology that spies on people with their phones, which reflects real life a little too closely. I doubt the movie wants to make a judgment call on this sort of thing being used in the real world, especially because real people are a lot more breakable than someone like the Joker and don’t have the means to cause this much destruction. Batman beating the Joker earlier also shares similarities with police brutality, mirroring people justifying torture for the purpose of getting information.

If Batman had not done lawless things, like breach the privacy of innocent people, things would be worse for the characters. Whether or not such a thing is needed in real life has of course been a big debate. On the other hand, if Batman had not allied himself with the government, namely Harvey, then the criminals and the Joker may not have seen the need to fight back, mainly by killing Rachel. Even when Harvey early on lawlessly interrogates a minion of the Joker, Batman criticizes how this would affect his image more so than it being unethical. Our hero is more than willing to project something fake and be dishonest for the apparent good of society.

Some would argue the real solution was to not put so much faith in Harvey to begin with. Imagine if Bruce retired, then Harvey went nutty? Even if that is correct, doing so did serve a positive purpose. This mirrors how the audience trusting Batman is foolish when he is sometimes blatantly dishonest or self-minded. The Joker simply being an unknown and intimidating threat ruins the idea that anyone here, from Batman to Harvey to Gordon, are as noble as they say. No matter what, it is scary that Gordon and Batman were left with a dramatic amount of power at the end, which they used to deceive, even if they have good intentions or that it may very well be the right answer.

OVERVIEW

Ironically, one reason this movie works so well is that the strongest actor of the previous film, Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth, does almost nothing here, suggesting that we’ve moved beyond the lighthearted and relaxed nature of Batman Begins. Everyone is constantly so busy that there’s no time for fluff. You can imagine that Batman might collapse under stress. With us not seeing that, we reinforce this image of Batman not having fun and instead always working. Some might say it’d be better to give him emotions for the audience to grasp onto, which admittedly may improve the story if done right.

It seems the answer to the question of whether or not it’s good to have a vigilante like Batman is that it is, but only to have a few that know what they’re doing, have the resources, and can be trusted. However, realistically we don’t know who those trustworthy people would even be. Even a genuinely well meaning person might have significant issues that draw them back from being untempted by power. This movie throws its hands and does not claim or show that Batman is this perfect force, just that he is the best of the bunch. That is frankly terrifying seeing as he is so trusted, which only goes to show how often in society sketchy people are trusted. A positive interpretation of Batman is that he is the best a rich and educated person that wants to do this whole thing could be. Someone that wants to fight criminals like this would likely have some sort of issues going on that causes them to justify their behavior. The Dark Knight sews in this inherent issue with Batman in a more believable and narratively fulfilling way than most superhero movies that have attempted such a task.

Batman Begins (2005) Review

I love the look of Batman flying.

Batman Begins spares no time to be a mess. Almost immediately we’re put in a first act that seems edited by a woodchipper. Throughout the whole movie the editing is extremely choppy and quick, never letting anything breathe, though this issue is much worse in the beginning. The movie initially tells the origins of Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne up to the point where he decides to become a superhero. It dramatically jumps from him as a child to him as an adult, with scenes basically never going on very long and being more about throwing out a blatant piece of plot information to remember. There isn’t much rhyme or reasoning to what is shown and when. There’s also little sense of stakes due to us not getting a chance to take in how Bruce feels or how long anything lasts. When Bruce first meets Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, Henri suggests they should meet up again, and in a difficult way, then in almost no time they are together again. Why even have them separate?

Bale has essentially one mode of being brooding and distant. His performance here has no soul behind the eyes. When it comes to scenes like the one with his parents’ killer, there’s no emotion to him, just a blank expression. Thus, when Bruce is at his weakest or his best, it all feels the same. We don’t know and can’t feel what drives him. Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is one of the more criticized performances in the film and while she is light on much depth, we at least are not called upon to particularly sympathize or connect with her, so her being bad doesn’t matter much. The villains all try to project a bit of weirdness to them, but it comes off as the actors treating this like a dumb comic book that they don’t understand.

Once Bruce Wayne decides to become a superhero, the movie mildly improves due to being more focused and not feeling a need to set up an obscene amount of plot points. You learn more about Bruce by just watching him trial and error through the situation, though this is light on much substance, like forward momentum or character development. This is essentially some decent fluff. As we get to the third act, the story gets very convoluted. It seems someone might know this as various characters constantly come in to dump exposition about what is happening and why. This problem is at its worst in the end, but is persistent throughout.

SPOILERS

Batman is a lot more morally dubious than you’d expect. Whether this is clever or stupid is up to you. He almost kills the man that shot his parents. While this is later looked down upon by him, Bruce is responsible for many lives being lost. The most notable example is when he refuses to kill a man, which angers Ducard, so to escape Bruce starts a fire that blows up the whole building. Some have argued that many of the people in the building would have had the chance to escape and were not stopped from doing so or it was self defense in order to get out of the situation, but this still leaves us thinking of Bruce as a person whose actions result in lives loss. He doesn’t have to be squeaky clean and moral, but this shows that he isn’t and is never going to be, which goes against any chance to be multilayered. At the end of the movie, he leaves Ducard in a situation where he will die. He uses the logic that he isn’t personally killing him, but he is still partially responsible for the death. Bruce is also responsible for lots of destroyed buildings and infrastructure. You’d think that odds are those buildings fell on some random and innocent people.

There’s a lot of bizarre comic relief moments which can come at the cost of the tone and characters. Scarecrow talking like he’s a big threat, only to be taken out with such ease, is extremely funny. This basically tells us we weren’t ever supposed to take him seriously, especially considering how insignificant he is at the end of the day.

One of the better parts of the story is its development of the inherent issue of someone like Batman, mainly that he is a vigilante that could go corrupt. As much can be said about Ducard. Both bend their rules as needed, supposedly to do the right thing. While Ducard becomes absurd, initially he seems more respectable, not wanting criminals to roam free. Batman himself is a bit challenged with the prospect of something like killing a villain, so they will not hurt people again. The movie has little to meaningfully say about all this. When Batman lets Ducard die, that doesn’t appear to lead to an internal struggle in Bruce or cause complications with anyone. Batman destroying property isn’t wrestled with, which it definitely should have. These ideas show promise, but only go to show how sloppy the film is in paying them off.

OVERVIEW

One way to fix this pacing issue is to make this one story two movies. The first would cover Bruce’s childhood and training, while the second would cover him going back to Gotham and getting into drama there. Apparently he was away for seven years, but there’s very little sense of it, with the audience simply told. Let’s see our hero suffer and fight. While we are told that Bruce was initially very broken, only to use his father as an example and improve himself, what we see is a character that seems impervious to any kind of growth, someone consistently sure of himself and that assertion not being challenged or noted by the film. The journey he goes on is so manufactured in feeling and lacking in real drive that the best you can look at Batman Begins as is as a bit of light spectacle, which is a huge step down for the guy that made Memento. There is decent action and Michael Caine gets some cute and funny bits, so take that from the picture.

She’s the Man (2006) Review

Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings

She’s the Man is a pretty outdated and amusing for it drag comedy. Despite being (loosely) based on a Shakespeare play, which was based on the common crossdressing convention, the movie understandably goes for the 2000s teen crowd. It’s frankly barely even based on the aforementioned play. The storyline is also pretty formulaic, though there’s a few small twists. This is fine if the actors can carry the dialogue and scenes, making the story work. Amanda Bynes as Viola Hastings consistently has an awkwardness to her, like she is going through the motions. Apparently, Bynes didn’t like having to play a male, but that isn’t channeled anywhere useful, like by utilizing that to make Viola seem uncomfortable. A lot of the time, Viola doesn’t seem uncomfortable with inherently presenting male. It’s also way too hard to buy her as not someone in disguise or looking like the person she’s pretending to be, her brother Sebastian.

Channing Tatum as Duke Orsino initially comes off as a generic brand jock, though later shows some more intrigue, mainly from being insecure. One highlight is how he doesn’t like that someone seems to be graphically talking about women a lot, a la in a dehumanizing way. While Tatum is fine, he doesn’t distinguish himself enough from this character type. David Cross as the wonderfully named “Horatio Gold” steals the show, as Cross usually does with ease. He’s not as sharp in children’s media as he is in adult’s, but he’s still a lot of fun, especially relative to everything else here. He doesn’t take all this very seriously.

There’s many contrivances, like Sebastian conveniently going to London for a time period, which doesn’t make sense how he’d get away with it. Many of these concern pure comedy moments of it seeming Viola might get caught as a girl, only to find a work around. Whether or not these are “funny” is up to viewer discretion. The movie as a whole wouldn’t work if people pointed out that Viola and Sebastian obviously look nothing alike.

It was nice to see Viola not willing to put up with her boyfriend being rude to her. That later leads to Viola’s mom seemingly being attracted to Viola’s ex-boyfriend, a high school student. Viola being a tomboy doesn’t serve much of a purpose. Maybe it could fuel Viola thinking everything will go swimmingly as Sebastian, only to realize she doesn’t like a lot of elements of masculinity? Kissing booths are so creepy. Are they real things?

One of my favorite tropes in female-as-male crossdressing films is when a girl falls for the main character, typically because they seem different than other men, which appears accidentally gay. The complicated and changing romantic dynamics of certain people being interested in others, sometimes one person publicly and another privately, is quite funny and a clever way to get laughs and more importantly forward the plot.

SPOILERS

Viola imagining herself playing soccer in a long poofy dress is effective out of context, showing someone who feels so out of their element, but seeing as Viola is fine with being a girl, this doesn’t make much sense. What would work better would be to have her present as male in an environment where she would normally be presenting as female. Apparently this dream is something a lot of real trans men can relate to.

Viola’s male friends and peers look pretty fake when all it takes to get them, including Viola’s ultimate love interest, to like her is by having some women speak highly of her in public. They later show more layers and realism. It seems Viola was initially dismissed for being a small man, but everyone, especially Duke, came to really respect her because of that moment. A smaller moment of a minor character showing interest in an “unattractive” woman suggests the movie is criticizing strict views of what an attractive straight man should want.

Something that’d be nice to see more often is when a man falls for a woman dressed as a man, we see him be into her as a man. In these mainstream films where that would be too racy, the best we get is the man seeming uncomfortable with the situation. Here, Duke generally is just very awkward coming off as emotional or vulnerable. The subtext of Duke being uncomfortable with crushing on a “man” is almost bursting to the surface, but is barely subdued.

It’s a little bizarre the real Sebastian wouldn’t acknowledge how weird it is he’s being treated like he’s been there a while or say or do anything that would expose he hasn’t been there. It is of course absurd seeing a principle out a student in the middle of a big game, especially with the student proving as much by showing their nude body, but fortunately this isn’t supposed to be taken seriously. It’s funny that Viola would say she likes Duke before revealing she’s a girl. It doesn’t make sense Viola would be allowed to compete, considering girls aren’t supposed to play. Viola’s ex complaining about losing is fun.

Viola and Duke talking later does show some grayness to both characters that adds a little spice to this story. Duke is upset about all that Viola has done and he’s right. Viola did manipulate him, mainly in her attempts to get him to date her as she was acting as Sebastian. She was also dishonest in general. Duke says he misses his roommate. Viola says he is still here, then touches her heart. Duke then says things will be easier if she is a girl full-time. This seems just made for people to read subtext into. My favorite part is Duke’s last comment implied he would be accepting and open to Viola presenting as a male and that he may think she did this because she likes expressing herself as a man sometimes.

OVERVIEW

Beyond those looking for a light comedy of the era, She’s the Man does feature some novel and almost certainly accidental trans allegories, like being uncomfortable with others seeing your body or going through hijinks to prevent certain people from knowing a certain identity. There is also a good feminist message about not prejudging women as bad at sports.

WALL-E (2008) Review

One of my favorite shots of the film

The greatest strength and weakness of Wall-E is its simplicity. The way that that’s a problem is how basic the story and its structure are. The lack of innovation there makes for a movie that is a little dull, due to lacking many tricks up its sleeve, as you pretty much always know what’s going to happen next. The best types of family movies have more that can appeal to an adult. This film does provide that, just not in the storyline. The animation and by extension aesthetic are very pretty, reminiscent of classic sci-fi, while giving its own twists. The dark subject matter it depicts has a soft edge to it, like it’s something a child would imagine, which creates a very unusual and extremely relatable feeling. Someone that worked on the movie said a planet filled with trash is the type of dystopia a child would imagine.

It is arguably a little strange seeing a robot character, the protagonist of Wall-E, be so much like a human child. An added “edge” to make him feel more distinct, but still inspired by that would help a lot in making him interesting. His almost complete lack of speaking makes for an endearing character, especially as we can sense whatever it is he’s thinking or feeling. Especially to a fan of silent cinema, this is not new, but it does add to the otherworldly and innocent sense. If this movie was made for adults with a human lead, you can imagine them doing something like getting hurt and cursing, which would create a very different vibe and make it too human. Also, as someone with difficulty speaking, I’ve always found Wall-E very relatable.

The character of Eve does have a few particularly sharp moments, such as when she is at her most vulnerable. Her character development is otherwise weak, with her dramatically switching from her more aggressive self to being a lot softer. The first thing she does when she meets Wall-E is too out of character with how she later is and makes her harder to relate to. There’s no reason she couldn’t have been simply neutral when meeting Wall-E, instead of how she is. Their romance is also very straightforward and uncomplicated. While not “realistic”, it mirroring a child’s understanding of a relationship is heartwarming. Thus, it works. Some of the character development the leads do have is emphasized very nicely with the romance. In fact, the scene of them where Wall-E has a fire hydrant is so warm and cinematic as to capture an undefinable sense of joy and love and be the best scene of the whole movie. It’s a work of art.

The vintage sounding song playing over a shot of space at the beginning sets the mood very well. Wall-E and the humans only have these artifacts to grasp to in terms of understanding their society and their future. This leads to contrast as the positive music continues over shots of the trash. Shots like the overly pristine ship and the planet of trash are very memorable images that also tell us about how the characters and their worlds are. It’s believable why Wall-E might be reluctant to be cleaned after living on a dirty planet, as it’s familiar to him and not apparently wrong. Seeing as he may be lonely, Wall-E just sorting things works as a way for him to ground himself and keep busy.

The appearance of old footage of live action people suggests this movie is set in the future of our current society. The intended message is that this is the future if we don’t take care of the planet. Otherwise, it is a little confusing why there would be live action people here. The little comedy moments throughout the film come off as forced and really aren’t needed.

SPOILERS

“A moment to be loved a whole life long.” playing as Wall-E sleeps alone in his dark place is really saddening. It doesn’t make much sense why Wall-E would fall for Eve, who is so hostile, so it seems likely he’s just falling for the first robot he sees. Wall-E accidentally destroys a lot of stuff and gets him and Eve labeled “rogue robots”. This really could’ve gotten Eve in a lot of trouble. This seems to go into a more common theme of the misfit robots seeing Wall-E as a leader, with them all essentially saving the day, showing the common but effective narrative of outcasts being what is ultimately needed to straighten out society. The complacency of humans has made them fat and apparently reliant on computers, which could’ve stopped them from ever feeling fulfilled. In fact, the antagonist is a well intentioned robot following humans’ now outdated orders.

When Eve shoots a “halt” sign, I hope she wasn’t killing a fellow robot. After never talking loudly, it’s chilling to hear Eve shout “No!” when Wall-E is injured. The humanity of her comes out here more than ever. Interestingly, if Wall-E was a human, he would’ve been killed by his injury, though instead he makes a full recovery later. Wall-E briefly being reset at the end doesn’t amount to anything. It just seems designed to tug on the heart strings. Admittedly, it does work at making you feel sad. It also mirrors the beginning when Eve was cold and Wall-E had life to him. The ending could’ve gone for something that plays off of the themes of the narrative before and not be so random feeling.

OVERVIEW

One reason the leads have so much personality is because they barely talk, which gives a pretty and surreal vibe throughout the whole story. WALL-E does work best as a movie for kids. It thrives off of the sense of innocence and simplicity the story and tone have, with things frankly not ever being too serious. A strong message is sent with what we learn. Adult media could easily have been too heavy handed. Still, it would’ve been very much ideal to have a bit more depth here, at least some twists so you don’t really know what’s going to happen next.

Kissing Jessica Stein (2001) Review

Heather Juergensen and Jennifer Westfeldt

I wanted cheesy, corny, stupid Lesbian rom-coms and this movie turned out to be that. I’ve seen many straight rom-coms like Kissing Jessica Stein and basically everyone has. This film is ridiculously samey and undistinguished, other than a fair twist of gayness. That twist may be enough for some. Despite not being very funny, this movie might pass as a decent watch for a queer crowd if it wasn’t for the ending that betrays a lot of the movie before it and makes the whole experience unsatisfying.

The dialogue is unintentionally silly. The film establishes the character’s personalities by them saying things that are very defining of that type of person, but there’s no subtlety or masking to what the point of the dialogue is. As an example, the dating scenes are overly goofy and cut too fast, with Jessica’s dates absurdly uncharismatic. Let the tone seep in a little. There’s also points like when Jessica keeps talking as someone tries to tell her her phone is ringing, which she somehow misses. She’s supposed to be clumsy, but this is a little much. Jennifer Westfeldt as Jessica Stein can often be way too bombastic instead of going for something simpler that would be more relatable.

The movie has some nice little moments. While not terribly subtle, there’s an amusing transition from the dates with weird men to two women kissing. Heather Juergensen as Helen Cooper dumping her purse is hilarious. As Jessica and Helen’s conversation progresses, the shot gets closer, like they’re becoming closer. The two guys at the bar are hilariously douchey. “But no one special?” “You know, I just don’t know.” When the film has less comedy around the start of the wedding plot, it gets a lot better. The leads pull off drama decently. There’s one shot where someone isn’t at their desk because it was established what it looked like earlier.

Scott Cohen as Josh Myers goes on a long tirade at a dinner table with Jessica where he criticizes her in front of a bunch of people. This early scene makes him extremely unlikable and his image never recovers after this point. Josh is supposed to be more sympathetic. The comedy scene with all the papers is particularly bizarre. It’s treating our protagonist as a stereotypical nerdy girl. She was more fleshed out before, being nerdy, but having various other qualities. The several kissing scenes are strange. Many of the jokes in them are so forced, when these scenes should just be romantic.

“You like the penis!” is a terrible line in an intended serious moment, though amusingly the conversation is overheard by an old woman who dawns a disgusted face. The handheld camera is sometimes too sporadic and moves too much, but it occasionally is very effective. When Helen and Jessica argue at one point, the camera is moving a lot because it’s a tense situation.

A little obsessed with these outfits and this picture

SPOILERS

Jessica’s discomfort around many men suggests she’s not that attracted to men. The upbeat music stopped when Jessica was asked to not sit with Helen, which shows the divide in their relationship. I was really curious if Josh was going to catch our two protagonists having sex when they were at Jessica’s mother’s house. It’s some quality suspense. Later, Jessica’s mother asks if she got an invitation and Jessica looks down in shame. Helen has a great shocked look on her face.

When Jessica comes out to her friend, Westfeldt gives a good performance as someone panicked. This scene is another example of a lot of fast dialogue shoved in one moment. It’d be more realistic if the characters were less wordy. Jessica’s mother’s monologue was well acted and well written. It seems like she knows too well about her problem, then there’s the reveal and it leaves the audience very surprised and relieved. Jessica inviting Helen and her family being supportive is very cathartic, as we never knew how they’d feel. Later we get the chuckle-worthy line, “Are you the lesbian?” The ending is foreshadowed a little heavily when at a party, Jessica kisses Josh for a lengthy amount of time.

The ending of Helen leaving Jessica, causing the latter to get back with Josh is pretty controversial. It doesn’t fit the story before it. The main problem with the ending was a lack of foreshadowing, though there was some, and that the whole emotional thrust of the movie was on these two women working it out. The concept of the ending, which seems to be that people can realize they’re bi, but still end up with someone of the opposite gender, is okay. Here, the two leads seem fine once they get over their bump. If the ending was going to work, there should’ve been seeds that Josh was really what Jessica needed and Helen wasn’t and not frame the lesbian relationship as satisfying and fulfilling.

Josh seemed antagonistic, with us at one point thinking he was going to fire Jessica. Thus, him being her real love interest is jarring. Scenes like Jessica’s mom affirming her daughter’s sexuality are so powerful for how it builds on and puts importance in the relationship between Jessica and Helen. Why not cut this moment if they were just going to break up later? This plays into how this ending is weird structurally. The main tension is relieved with the mom revealing her support, then another is created right around the end. “Jessica finds love, figures out how to accept what that means in her reasonably intolerant mindset, and then she just loses it for something that didn’t even seem like it would work.” Jessica and Josh already dated and broke up before the movie started.

The ending feels like a series of vignettes, with us getting a bullet point look at how Jessica and Helen part and then move on, with little breathing room. At one point, Jessica said Helen wanted to be with someone “A little more gay.” That line makes Jessica feel clueless, like she can’t grasp what Helen really wanted in a relationship and boiled it down to her being gay. A way to make this breakup work a little better is to take an element of the story that was underemphasized, Jessica’s love of art. Maybe there’s some way Josh was able to support that or at least her breakup made Jessica realize something about her art? Maybe she was putting off working on art because of her relationship, then got back to it when she needed something to keep her mind off Helen?

Admittedly, Josh’s presence throughout the film doesn’t make a lot of sense here unless he’s going to ultimately have some big role, which could probably be guessed to be him ending up with Jessica. If Helen had been a man, it’d be a lot more predictable Jessica would go back to Josh, as this movie’s attempt to seem daringly progressive made that not seem so likely.

OVERVIEW

The movie was okay for the most part, at least those looking for a light lesbian romance flick that feels a lot like most other romance flicks. The ending is so bad that it really sinks the graces the film had set up. Especially for those that like the comedy, you could theoretically edit out the ending and the few bits of short foreshadowing and have a better experience. “What do you do to be happy?” “Nothing, I’m not!”

Iron Man (2008) Review

A frame from the film

It can be believed why Iron Man has become cemented in pop culture. It embraces both its limitations and the then-modern trends, featuring lots of fun excess. If this style of “constant stimulation and really simple stories” isn’t for you, there’s not much to go off of here. Even some actors here that have done great stuff in the past, like Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, are way too one note. Basically everyone here is just an archetype with the possible exception of the protagonist, Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. Downey is clearly a charismatic guy and pulls off some emotion and humor, though his character does very little developing. He’ll be in one mind, then the other. His attitude of “Doing whatever it takes to help people” is basically unwavering, despite how the character was early on. Thus, he seems too perfect and a little bit of grayness to him would go a long way.

The movie opens well on a frame of grand scenery. Afterwards, it becomes overstimulating with lots of brash humor and music, seeming to be trying to make this movie feel modern and distinct from what you might expect. Despite the character of Tony Stark having a defining quality of wanting to do the right thing, both in the beginning and later on he seems mildly misogynist. Tony’s ability to both be rude to women and then immediately get with them further perpetuates how movies like this treat women as objects. The only female character with any development, Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, only seems to exist to service Tony. A little bit of scantily clad ladies are tossed in, probably to get a few more eyes in the theater seats. A little romance and comedy are forced in here and there. Especially the romance could so easily be cut, with little chemistry between the participants.

Characters like Ho Yinsen, played by Shaun Toub, don’t serve any purpose other than to help Tony, not even coming back into relevance at the end. Why does this person want to help Tony? Even some of the lesser antagonists are made to seem like they have something to do and are intimidating, only to come to nothing. When Rhodey says he’s not going to drink, only for him to be doing so next scene, he comes off as a very weak character. What got him to change his mind? This shows the character as only mattering for the sake of a little light comedy and having little real point.

The pivotal moments of seeing Tony in his varying suits and trying them out are really striking. There’s a sense that the game is really changing and the stakes are being built on. Each new stage adds a sense of intensity and adventure, with some problems fixed and others needing to be figured out. A lot of the shots of the suits and the following action scenes are some of the best looking moments here, being really stylized. It’s a shame that we get a pretty lame reveal of the proper Iron Man outfit. We see Tony putting it on, then flying in it. It’d be better to only get a good look once arriving at his destination.

There’s a decent critique of Capitalism, with it being stated it’s made easy to have no accountability and ignoring or actively hurting people in poorer countries makes companies money, so they let horrible things happen. Not that I think this message was intended, but even near the end, Tony endangers innocent people by being careless and/or testing inventions, which could be a commentary on how rich people care more about their novelties than other people. The government is also shown to be complicit or actively hurting people.

The movie was a lot more violent than I was expecting. There’s a huge body count and some of it has a bit of realism, being really sudden. Still, the cartoon physics is quite absurd. After an explosive goes off next to Tony, it’s hard to believe he’s not more seriously injured or dead. In fact, there’s numerous points where he should’ve died if the physics was accurate, but in the movie he’s fine.

SPOILERS

There’s sharp tonal whiplash where after some light conversation, everyone except Tony seemingly dies. Instead of being able to see Tony react to how his weapons are being used by malicious people, someone just tells him about it and how he should feel bad. There’s no subtlety. When Tony and Yinsen were building the prototype suit, why did no one see they obviously weren’t building what they wanted and stop them?

Later, why would Tony keep flying up as ice surrounds his suit? This does match how overconfident he can be. He masters his suit way too quickly when you think he’d struggle more. This could go to challenge his seeming perfection and aid in the final fight. While it’s hard not to be captivated by Tony’s “liberation” of a society by gang members, it symbolizes rich people doing charity for small groups, instead of doing things on a grander scale that don’t look as good for their image. In the context of the movie, the scene is fine. You can imagine Iron Man always running around saving people, but the subtext of him just occasionally helping people is pretty uncomfortable.

When we learn of Obadiah being an antagonist, he suddenly becomes cartoonishly mean. This comes down to him pointlessly explaining his plan to Tony, which only hurts him. The last fight scene ties off the film well, with Tony having to defeat Obadiah despite having many disadvantages. The way Tony defeats Obadiah is clever, though there’s a few contrivances that get him his victory. If Tony had been struggling with his suit earlier, the fight would be more intense. Why feature Obadiah being set back by the icing issue, if he would be fine in little time? Obadiah continues to come off as an idiot when he keeps shooting around Tony, without hitting him.

Tony’s rambling at the end about how he’s not like a superhero seems to be trying way too hard to distinguish this movie series from past superhero media. It’s a little too heavy handed, though Tony frankly saying, “I am Iron Man.” is a great line, simply and gracefully distinguishing itself from the understanding of superheroes most would have, without being overdone or out of character.

OVERVIEW

Despite the generally positive reception, Iron Man is too empty beyond the surface. Even some of the more unexpected ideas, like the Capitalism critique, don’t serve the story as much as it should. It’s still a decent action romp. There is another excellent line in the mix from a minor character, “I hope you’ll repay me with the gift of iron soldiers.”

Memento (2000) Review

Three frames from the film

The best way to talk about Memento is to not talk about it. Its mystery is best left to be enjoyed on its own. Still, for those who have seen it or want to know more about it, it’s a great thriller with an intriguing, albeit maybe slightly hard to get used to structure. The scene order is mostly, but not entirely, going in reverse. Based on how the film is structured, we usually only know what our protagonist knows. The movie opening on an image of a dead body is a really dark and effective way to open, perfectly setting the dark tone.

Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby makes for a fascinating protagonist due to his stoic determination, though you’d expect him to be more emotionally vulnerable, trying to deal and cope with being involved in such a horrible mess. He is often too willing to brush things off and move on with his life. Carrie-Anne Moss as Natalie is generally a little simplistic, but this works as we’re only seeing her through Leonard’s limited perspective. Little bits of more going on peek out here and there, but that neither needs to be explained or should be. It’s more interesting to make your own interpretation. Down to even his look, Joe Pantoliano as “Teddy” looks untrustworthy and is easy to root against. He is often dubious. He brings a lightheartedness to some moments, like when he says one benefit of his friendship with Leonard is that he can retell the same jokes.

It’s a little awkward when Leonard tells someone some information about himself for the sake of the audience, but there is a reason given why later that makes decent enough sense. Some seemingly random parts manage to come back into effect later. The story is extremely clever once you’ve gotten into it. The movie really succeeds off of all the interesting things it has to say about human nature. As an example, Leonard is correct when saying that all memories are distorted, thus it’s better to rely on facts. Yet, there are issues with even that. We humans have to interpret those facts. The story itself is still very engaging. It’s hard to deny lines like, “What’s the last thing that you do remember?” “My wife…” “That’s sweet.” “Dying.”

SPOILERS

To expand more on my analysis of Natalie, she obviously is willing to lie to Leonard. It’s easy to believe she might keep saying whatever lie can get him to do whatever she wants. This obviously isn’t really the point of the movie, with us getting what we need, that Leonard shouldn’t be trusting the sources he is. One should not consider Natalie’s characterization or Moss’ performance bad, as they are very well crafted for this story. The unreliability of Natalie is shown when she thinks Leonard will remember her, probably because she seems to be falling for him. She wants, at least for his sake and probably her own, for him to be able to remember things.

It’s heartbreaking seeing Leonard talk about how he can think his wife has just gone to the bathroom or something like that, as he can’t ever really come to terms with her being dead due to his condition making it so recent. More so than anything else, he just wants to be able to accept she’s gone. The most crushing part of the film is between Sammy and his wife. Namely when the wife tries to work out a system with him or get him to be able to remember things. Of course, nothing comes close to what happens with the insulin. Obviously for those that have seen the movie, Leonard and Sammy end up being related in more ways than it initially seems.

There’s some questionable, albeit minor, moments. Why would the person working at the motel be honest about ripping off Leonard? Why wouldn’t Leonard care? When Leonard sees Dodd in the bathroom, why would he immediately start fighting him, seeing as he doesn’t know who he is? What was the point of Leonard breaking into the wrong room?

Cleverly, Leonard’s view of events is challenged slowly. The movie is set up to make Leonard sympathetic, with little reason to doubt his narrative. Natalie also similarly seems good natured. Both are shown to have deep issues, with Leonard even hitting Natalie. That sets up the darker things we learn about Leonard. We also see the manipulative side of Natalie when she uses that to her advantage. While it is proven that some of what Leonard believes is wrong, it is fun to decipher what may be true. Despite the twist that Teddy didn’t kill Leonard’s wife, he was still tricking him. At the beginning of the film, we were told Teddy was not to be trusted and that was proven to be true by the end. Still, by the end, Leonard is now understood to be villainous, with him knowing he will just keep following and killing random people for his own sake.

Seeing as Teddy was helping Leonard and he’s now dead, and Natalie probably won’t want to play along much longer, it’s interesting to know what’s next for Leonard. Especially as his body count will presumably increase. To speculate, if he kills enough people, or even just attacks them and lets them go, he’d probably get arrested and maybe the death penalty?

OVERVIEW

Memento is a brilliant story that proves itself a very rewarding experience for those willing to engage with it. It has that “early film feeling”, mainly noticeable in the clearly low budget, but it doesn’t suffer from that low budget. While arguably the movie could’ve had a more striking look at points, Christopher Nolan makes the story work very well, so you’re not focusing on things like that, instead the great narrative.

The Monks – Three Fan Albums

For those not in the know, fan albums are the attempts of me and many others to take songs and put them on an album, typically they’re made to improve upon something, such as an existing album or to take non-album tracks and put them on an album.

The Monks are generally known and defined by their one and only LP, as if nothing else was ever made. While that’s not far from the truth, there is a little more they did. That material is consistently less hard hitting than the famous album. The group are still surprisingly strong at infusing psychedelia and pop, with the drumming a particular highlight. That being said, these aren’t must-listen recordings by any means. While The Sonics managed to get almost a second full length worth of hard edged tracks, and all the way to a third of very quality work, these stray Monks would almost best be described as a different band. If you like the famous Black Monk Time and want more of it, you should go to other bands with a proto-punk style, as Black is all you’ll get from the Monk pot. If you want decent rock tunes and interesting alternate versions of songs, then here you go, what is essentially another group.

These two album names were apparently considered to be the names of potential follow-up albums. I don’t think they’re great titles, especially because of the change in sound for one and the same songs of the other, but I thought it was cute to do. If albums of new material had come out under those names, it probably wouldn’t have been like what’s below, with album-only tracks that were never recorded.

The three “fan albums” are Silver Monk Time, which details demos and live cuts of what’s on Black and also… Gold Monk Time, which features no overlapping songs with Black. The third are stray “modern” recordings by members of the band. Just for fun, also included is the live reunion album and more solo projects, as well as a list of what exists, but I couldn’t find.

THE MONKS – SILVER MONK TIME

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Boys Are Boys (1964)”
2. “Monk Time”
3. “Love Came Tumblin’ Down”
4. “Space Age”
5. “We Do Wie Du”
6. “Boys Are Boys (1965)”
7. “Pretty Suzanne”
8. “Higgle-Dy Piggle-Dy”

SIDE B

1. “Oh, How To Do Now (1965)”
2. “I Hate You”
3. “Boys Are Boys (1966)”
4. “Oh, How To Do Now (1966)”
5. “Complication”
6. “I Can’t Get Over You”
7. “Cuckoo”

THE MONKS – GOLD MONK TIME

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. “Monk Chant”
2. “I Can’t Get Over You”
3. “Cuckoo”
4. “Love Can Tame the Wild”
5. “He Went Down to the Sea”
6. “Pretty Suzanne”

SIDE B

1. “Hushie Pushie”
2. “There She Walks”
3. “Julia”
4. “P.O. Box 3291”
5. “I Need U Shatzi”
6. “Yellow Grass”
7. “I’m Watching You”

GARY BURGER & DAVE DAY – IT IS CHARLES TIME

TRACKLISTING

SIDE A

1. The Spectors – “Oh, How To Do Now” (1993)
2. Alec Empire & Gary Burger – “Monk Time” (2006)
3. The Fall & Gary Burger – “Higgle-Dy Piggle-Dy” (2006)
4. The Havletones & Dave Day – “That’s My Girl” (2006)

SIDE B

1. Charles Paul Wilp & The Monks – “It Is Charles Time” (2006)
2. Faust & Gary Burger – “Beware (The Transatlantic Feedback)” (2006)
3. Gary Burger – “I Feel Fine” (2013)

LINKS

1. The Monks – Black Monk Time (1966) – Spotify, YouTube
2. The Monks – Silver Monk Time (1966) – YouTube, Spotify (Incomplete)
3. The Monks – Gold Monk Time (1967) – Spotify, YouTube
4. Minnesoda, Featuring Eddie Shaw – Minnesoda (1972) – YouTube
5. Lightning, Featuring Eddie Shaw – “William Tell Overture (The Lone Ranger Theme)” (1975) – Spotify, YouTube
6. The Monks – Let’s Start a Beat – Live from Cavestomp (2000) – Spotify, YouTube
7. Gary Burger & Dave Day – It Is Charles Time (2013) – Spotify, YouTube
8. Eddie Shaw & The Hydraulic Pigeons – Jass In Six Pieces (2013) – Spotify, YouTube
9. Gary Burger – BurgerMONK 2010 (2016) – Spotify, YouTube

MISSING RECORDINGS

1. Dave Day – “I Want The Right To Be Free” (1979)
2. Dave Day – “G.I. Blues” (1979)
3. Dave Day – “Application For Your Love” (1985)
4. Dave Day – “Stars Shining In The Night” (1985)
5. Gary Burger – What’s Your Limit (1992)
6. Dave Day – Having A Party With Dave Havlicek (1994)
7. Dave Day – “I Want The Right To Be Free” (1997)
8. Dave Day – “Don’t Ha Ha” (1997)

THE MONKS ARE

• Gary Burger – lead guitar, lead vocals, tambourine
• Larry Clark – organ, backing vocals, piano, tambourine
• Dave Day – banjo, rhythm guitar, banjo guitar, tambourine, backing vocals
• Roger Johnston – drums, backing vocals
• Eddie Shaw – bass guitar, backing vocals, trumpet, brass instruments

This is a passion of mine and if one person likes what I do, I’ll feel honored. I like suggestions on what artist to cover next, so if you know of one you’d like me to look at, feel free to suggest ‘em!

Bamboozled (2000) Review

Bamboozled makes itself immediately apparent that it has something to say and a way to say it. The opening scene of Pierre speaking to the audience with his interesting voice in front of what looks like a greenscreen while loud music plays doesn’t leave any room for subtle atmosphere building. It is obviously bombastic. The movie sometimes has long dialogue sequences before something jolting occurs, like a loud musical sequence, as if what we’re seeing is a cold and clinical television studio system with more honest expression sometimes coming out, only to be soon after shut down. Those dialogue sequences are often scored with serious or otherwise attention grabbing music, which evokes the feeling of community theater. Those elements make the film entrancing and memorable in its strangeness.

The look of the film is distinguished in how it’s undistinguished, a little glossy from its digital camera that looks unprocessed and rugged. It doesn’t look very good, to be fair, but it works at showcasing this world as gross and uncomfortable. Scenes like Pierre describing “colored people’s time” goes on longer than you’d think, also showing the same effect of being unnatural and disturbing. It establishes the dynamic where black people’s failings are emphasized or exaggerated by white people, or by black people because of white people. The references to modern media, fashion, etc showcase the dichotomy between that and the idea of a minstrel show. Some even modern tropes if you go back enough are shown to be rooted in minstrel show humor.

The justifications used by white people to say or do the obviously extremely racist things they support use the sort of logic you hear today to justify such things. A character even directly gives those justifications at one point in how negative feedback can be challenged. Methods are suggesting this modern show is better because its cast and crew are really black, acting like critics are taking away viewers’ choice to decide what they watch, acting like critics are demanding power or control, obfuscating what “black” means, calling the show a satire without explaining how, evoking well known black figures, evoking there being a nebulous sense of “community”, and acting like every representation of black people is criticized unfairly, so this shouldn’t be seen as any different. These reasons can be hard to quickly dismantle, but a general issue is that they are sidestepping the nature of what’s being criticized, as well as the arguments by said critics. One particularly amusing moment is when Pierre says that slavery ended four hundred years ago, which is simply false.

The film goes on a little too long given how many scenes hit the same beat of “exposing a social bias” without much to add to that intended message. This isn’t a very significant problem, but one that takes away from the impact more than if the film was punchier, especially as punchy as moments like Pierre’s first scene. About thirty minutes could and should have been cut. At one point, Dunwitty asks Pierre to name a person on his wall. We never see who he’s referring to, which seems strange. Maybe we were supposed to see, but that never got shown for whatever reason?

The character “Big Blak Afrika” describing why he wants his chosen name to be respected is delivered poorly, with the actor almost mumbling. The point of this scene of him isn’t clear, possibly that black people are not beyond being bigoted themselves. That is later shown when some black audience members are the most receptive to the minstrel show. Sloan asking her brother to leave her apartment has really weird hammy acting, with her pointing to the door with both hands. Her character is usually more subtle, so maybe this was intentional? The title screen for Spike Lee’s production company in the last seconds features the phrases “Ya Dig” and “Sho Nuff”.

SPOILERS

Moments like an apparent dream sequence of Pierre beating up Dunwitty for saying the n-word show the frustration minority groups often feel when having to tolerate such behavior. Pierre seemed to have wanted to create his minstrel show to get him fired and to be offensive, but he is later shown defending it. When Pierre’s boss adds in more jokes to the script to make it “funnier”, Pierre complains about how racist they are, as if the point and original concept isn’t already extremely racist. When Womack is exposed to how racist the show will be, he says he’ll need more money. His value system is in effect to a degree, but he is willing to suppress it for money.

Womack seems to understand that what he’s doing is horrible, but when he’s performing as “Sleep ‘n Eat”, he seems enthused and like he likes the material. Pierre and Sloan also seemingly randomly are either supportive or against the show at points. One of the more biting lines in the film is, “I say n**** a hundred times every morning. Keeps my teeth white.” A modern commercial of a group of black people advertising a soda shows some minstrel mannerisms in their behavior. Racism intersecting with sexism is depicted when Sloan is upset at the suggestion that she couldn’t have gotten where she is without sleeping with powerful people.

A scene of a mixed race audience repeatedly using the n-word goes on to the point that the word loses much meaning, reflecting that it only has meaning because culture applies one to it. When Pierre is damage controlling a situation after Manray makes a scene in front of a studio audience, he says horribly racist comments about him, as prejudiced media like this conditions people to think of who is being targeted in a more negative or mockable light. This dehumanization is taken to a more extreme point when video of Manray being murdered is allowed to air on national television, like that sort of behavior against black people is acceptable, at least in a way. A moment of less subtle social commentary is when a group of black criminals are gunned down by the police, while they don’t shoot and only arrest the one white member.

One of the final notes of the movie is when there’s a montage of real anti-black jokes throughout filmed history is shown. The montage shows how unchanging racist imagery can be, with certain patterns emerging. It also suggests they’re recent enough that they were filmed and sometimes in color. The score that plays during it mirrors the earlier scenes of conversations going on long tangents, like how this material becomes numbed in our minds due to its unchanging and cold nature. The somber score plus the subject matter is probably intended to educate those who wouldn’t understand the harm of these depictions, just like how ways of obfuscating racist media was discussed earlier.

Scenes like the commercial for “Timmi Hillnigger” earlier in the film show the materialistic, exploitative, and stereotypical nature of hip hop culture, at least to director Spike Lee, using black people for the purpose of emphasizing a rich white person or depicting black people as something novel to be envious of. “Everybody wanna be a n****, but nobody wanna be a n****.” And why do black people appear and endorse this media? The reason why is because of money. They need it, so they’ll do something like a minstrel show if that means financial stability. That being said, the honest opinion black characters have to racism varies. Why can be debated, but it may be that a young person of modern times wasn’t alive in the most pointed eras of slavery-the 1950s or the desire to fit in with a bigoted culture can make those minority groups be willing to let things slide for the sake of fitting in. They can also honestly not understand the problem. As an example, Pierre doesn’t like his father’s standup material, thinking he’s lost his principles, despite him literally creating and supporting a minstrel show.

OVERVIEW

It seems clear that there is a desire to have your comfort zones challenged. This can be manipulated by those who put out a harmful product and act like those worthwhile “get it”. The masses who don’t really understand it will support it to fit in. This is shown in the film when the minstrel show is called groundbreaking. When Dave Chappelle would actually do satires of racism on his show Chappelle’s Show, he felt people weren’t getting the point and only liking the show when it was making fun of black people on a surface level. There is certainly a lot that can be taken from Bamboozled and it can be especially good for those that may not understand the nature of racism, so this makes fun of some common issues effectively. Another recommendation for this type of movie is The Watermelon Woman.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

For the record, this has been a pretty depressing film to write about. It’s taken a while for me to finish because of its nature, being easier to distract myself with the Three Stooges! It is a worthwhile work, but maybe don’t review it, like I did.