First Impression (Movie Review): Joker [NO SPOILERS]

To be completely honest, I wasn't expecting to do this. I was very skeptical about this movie when I first saw the original teaser. When the trailers came out  I thought "Ok, this looks pretty good" but there was still doubt in my mind about the whole premise. "If they want this to work, they MUST have some EXTREMELY clever writers" I thought to myself, and between Disney's Remakes, Baby Driver, and Yesterday, I really doubt they would. Finally the reviews came in with overwhelming praise. Despite my doubts about the concept of a Joker origin story, I still wanted to see this movie and the positive reviews encouraged my desire to do so. I went to watch it last week and... well... how do I even start?

"Joker" is an amazing movie. Great cinematography, an amazing performance by Joaquin Phoenix, and a gripping, intense, heart wrenching script. Throughout its entire run time I felt my heart pounding, feeling as it wanted to explode out of my chest. I don't think any movie has made me feel like this. However, fair warning, this movie is very disturbing (for all the good reasons, but disturbing nonetheless). "The Dark Knight" showed us a demon. The embodiment of chaos, death, anarchy, and destruction. "Joker" gave us a man. A person with a family, hopes, dreams, and we watch him be slowly stripped away from everything that made him human until he is nothing but a monster. There is a comfort in villainizing those who commit atrocious acts. We could never become like them because they are evil. To me, this is what's horrifying about "Joker": The realization that monsters were, indeed, once human. 

Now, this movie has problems, like any other. I felt the music could've been quieter in some scenes. Also Joker seems to be whinier in some scenes. Usually he is more confident, commanding, and intelligent but his character does make sense in the world he is portrayed (it IS a different interpretation after all so as long as it works in the story and captures the essence of the character, it doesn't matter). There also a lot of shots that might come off as pretentious because Todd Philips wanted to be artsy, or some sequences that go on for a little too long, but honestly this is all nitpicking. 

"Joker" is a movie that was very carefully made, and the lighting, staging, acting, and cinematography all reflect that. It is absolutely a MUST watch. I might go and see it again because there's so much that can be picked apart. I know this review was kind of vague and short, but I do believe that this is a movie that should be experienced, not be told about. 

Song Review: "Norwegian Reggaeton" by Nanowar Of Steel (feat. Charly Glamour & Gigatron)

I'm going to go on a limb and say this is the song of the year right here. Not "Bad Guy", not "Old Town Road", not "Sucker for You", and absolutely NOT any song released by Ed Sheeran in 2019. As mentioned previously, I haven't been posting much in regards to Billboard Hot 100 because it really doesn't give me anything to say. Most of the songs are simply mediocre, and I do mean mediocre. I talked positively about "Me!" but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good (arguably it's not) but in the context of everything else and the history of its performers, it is a better song than it should be. There are exceptions, however. "Old Town Road" is a good song, but it's been so politicized that it's hard to enjoy at the moment. What is clearly just a silly country rap song has been turned into a battlefield of racial politics, and this sours the music. I want to talk about "Bad Guy" but it's just taking me a while to make up my mind whether I like this song or not (it's complicated and I'll explain why when I get into it). Point is, most of the good songs in popular radio this year have a big asterisk next to them and, with the exception of "Old Town Road", it usually means "it's not really good, but there's much worse going on right now". "Norwegian Reggaeton" doesn't have this problem, at all. "Norwegian Reggaeton" is fun, energetic, catchy, and hilarious.


Musically, "Norwegian Reggaeton" is simple. I will even go and say it's very derivative. This sounds like something negative, but it's not. "Norwegian Reggaeton" is a comedy song that attempts to make fun of Heavy Metal by putting it in the context of a Reggaeton song. The Heavy Metal part is very obvious (the lyrics are fashioned after themes Metal songs tend to write about, and the heavy distortion guitars). The Reggaeton part is also pretty obvious from the beat they use and the way the lyrics are phrased. However, for anyone who didn't grew up listening to Reggaeton (like I was, against my will),  Reggaeton is a VERY uncreative genre. The beat is always the same (although it may be in different tempo varying from song to song) and the subject matters are always about sex. I don't think I ever mentioned this in my "Despacito" review, but I used to say to my friends "Despacito" was the "Bohemian Rhapsody" of Reggaeton for the simple reason that no song in Reggaeton has ever been as musically complex and diverse as "Despacito". That will give you an idea of how low the bar is. "Norwegian Reggaeton" being derivative could be a nod to this and could be a great joke on its own, however, there's something else in regards to "Norwegian Reggaeton" and Despacito: "Norwegian Reggaeton" very clearly took "Despacito" as a template. The acoustic guitars and vocal melodies are eerily similar, and if this weren't clearly a parody, I'd be very worried of an incoming lawsuit. The chord progression is the same just played half step down ("Despacito" is in Bm - G - D - A, and "Norwegian Reggaeton" is Bbm - F# - Db - Ab), however both of them use the 4 Chords of Pop progression which is probably the most common chord progression in pop music. It could be a coincidence but keeping in mind the other musical similarities, it feels very deliberate. There are 3 possible reasons why Nanowar decided to make "Norwegian Reggaeton" as close to "Despacito" as legally possible:

1) To make fun of a very repetitive genre, down to relying on the most overused chord progression in Pop history.
2) To make the parody more recognizable. "Despacito" is the only Reggaeton song that EVERYONE has heard. Unless you lived in a Latino community (and even then, probably in a very specific one in a specific time), then you've probably never heard of a Reggaeton song outside of "Despacito".
3) Similar to point 2, it could be that "Despacito" is the only Reggaeton song Nanowar of Steel have ever listened to, and based their parody on it since it was their only point of reference. I'm just saying, a Heavy Metal band from Italy doesn't sound like the type to be connoisseurs of a musical genre originated in Puerto Rico.

"Norwegian Reggaeton" is somewhat complicated to talk about for those who are unfamiliarized with Heavy Metal. Not in regards to the music, per say, but in regards to the culture. As mentioned previously, "Norwegian Reggaeton" is a comedy song that attempts to make fun of Heavy Metal by putting it in the context of a Reggaeton song. The problem with this is that if you don't know that, for example, Scandinavian countries (Norway and Sweden specifically) are a fertile ground for Heavy Metal bands, then you'll probably be confused by why the song is called "Norwegian Reggaeton". Most people know Metal lyrics dabble in Satanism, and you can see that referenced in this song, but the song is also littered with lyrics about Norse Mythology. You might assume this is just to play with the "Norwegian" half of "Norwegian Reggaeton" or playing with the idea of the "Brutal Macho" posturing that a lot of Metal has in its lyrics and relating it back the Vikings (history's most notorious badasses), and you're not wrong. However, this is more likely in reference to Viking Metal, a real subgenre of Folk Metal that uses Norse Mythology as a setting for their lyrics and themes.  How many of you know what the line "You burned my Soul like the Fantoft Church in June 1992" is referencing? What I'm saying is that the song is funny on it's own due to the spectacle of a bunch of Metalheads in Black and White makeup dancing to Reggaeton with an entourage of twerking goth girls. However, there's more to it than just the contrast shock. Unfortunately, I don't think I can go into the lyrics in detail because a lyrical analysis would require me to explain the joke (more than I already have, at least) or have to give context so those outside of the Metal community can get the reference which would make for a very tedious read. With that said, painting a very general picture, the lyrics are very funny as they balance Heavy Metal and Reggaeton tropes, Nanowar also throws in some Norwegian probably to add some spice (which, fun fact, technically makes this song trilingual), and there is some clever word play every once in a while.


I cannot tell you how much I love this song. I was dying laughing when I first heard it. I will admit I probably found it funnier because, as mentioned in my "Despacito" review, I grew up in a community where Reggaeton was everywhere, and every Rocker, Metalhead, and Music Professor with a PhD I've ever talked to said that it wasn't "even worth calling music". I recall a professor at my music academy one time saying in class "It has a beat, rhythm, and melody. I hate myself for this but I legally have to say that Reggaeton IS music, but only by definition" (no joke, he actually said this). Keeping this in mind, I might have a little bit of a bias since I have a direct musical history with Metal, Reggaeton, and the relationship between both genres. However, not to over hype this song, this is not the first time this joke has been done. Costarrican comedy group La Media Docena made a comedy skit where they play a song called "La Cumbia Metalera". Cumbia had a similar reputation as Reggaeton (although its hatred is not AS abysmal), and the shock of watching a "Heavy Metal" band playing a Cumbia while making metal references was enough to make the joke work. However, "La Cumbia Metalera" is a lot more shallow in its references (it's basically just name dropping a bunch of band names and terms like "moshing") and it's more of a straight up Cumbia. "Norwegian Reggaeton" actually tries to blend both genres lyrically and musically, making the joke be more than just "oh, isn't this wacky how these two things don't go together". I wish I could say more about "Norwegian Reggaeton", but it is just magic that has to be experienced. If you haven't checked it out, I HIGHLY recommend that you do. Even if you don't find the jokes all that funny as I did, you'll still end up with a cool, fun song with a solid hook, catchy melody, and infectious energy.

Song Review: "ME!" by Taylor Swift ft. Brendon Urie

Since American pop music, in general, seems to be so mediocre and lazy lately (including the good songs), I haven't been paying much attention to what's popular anymore. This why I haven't been posting much of anything since 2017. Even when I do, it's not on songs that are contemporary or popular. I've heard a couple of songs that even if I tried writing something about them, there's very little to work with. For example, "Earth" by Lil Dicky was one of these songs. It's unfunny like everything else Lil Dicky has done, the only appeal is the amount of celebrity cameos, the song itself is substandard, and it has one joke about World War 2 that he just shouldn't have done at all. He doesn't have the wit or charisma to make it even work, not to mention that he seems like the type of person who doesn't understand the weight and implication that joke carries. And that right there was the entire review.

You can imagine the joy I had when a friend of mine asked me to review "Me!" by Taylor Swift. Last time someone asked me to review a song, it was one of the worst things I have ever heard sung by one of the worst people I have ever heard of. So I was filled with dread and excitement. Taylor Swift has devolved as an artist into black hole of ego ever since "Shake It Off" hit the charts. Since then, her singles have become even more about herself and her reputation. A song by her with the title "Me!" sounded like Taylor Swift's final transformation to Meghan Trainor levels of narcissism. Not to mention that the song has Brendon Urie, lead singer of Panic! at the Disco. Which as a band has also devolved into the discount version of Fall Out Boy (who themselves have crumbled into an angrier version of Maroon 5). Oh how the mighty have fallen.

With my expectations set, I finally listened to the song and it was overwhelmingly ok. In fact, I actually like it more than I thought I would. Why? For starters, it stands out. While nothing really groundbreaking, it takes little to no influence from Trap, so the song actually has some energy in it.  This on its own already sets it a part from the rest of the Hot 100. It's also written in the key of C major which is a very bright sound to contrast the downbeat darkness of other hit songs of the past 2 years. Unlike "Happier" by Marshmello, it doesn't sound or feel hollow either. It does in a way due to the production, but Taylor and Brendon's voice have a lot more personality than Dan Smith's voice does, helping the song feel more alive. Furthermore, the drum beat on the verses help the energy of the song have a pulse and properly build up to a chorus. Once in the chorus, we're hit with a synth chord progression of C-Am-F-G accompanied by some horn fills. Again, not necessarily a groundbreaking chord progression or melody, but it is a bright, catchy, and well composed section. Everything is where it needs to be and it fits the tone and theme of the song.


Speaking of the theme, what is this song about? Not what I expected at all. It's a love song, to begin with. The song is about how "I (the narrator) have a lot of problems, and there are other people out there who comparatively are better and/or cooler. However, no one is going to love you like I love you". This is the gist of it and it reminds me a lot of the "You Belong With Me", but crossed with the (probably accidental) self-awareness of "Blank Space". "ME!" is undoubtedly about how the narrator is the right person for you, like "You Belong With Me", but it doesn't hide the fact that the narrator is not perfect. "You Belong With Me" is a great "Teenage Love Song". It's young, naive, and innocent.
"ME!", on the other hand, is honest, open, mature, and with the right level of assertiveness. The characters of this story are slightly dysfunctional to make them feel like real people, but not too much to where we (the audience) don't think the relationship is dead. But instead of comparing it to "You Belong with Me" and "Blank Space", I think we should compare "ME!" with "Somebody that I Used to Know". Both songs have a good enough concept to make them work in any song (in theory), but what make both of these songs great is having a guest singer. Brendon and Kimbra both serve the same purpose in their respective songs: give the narrative a different perspective. In "Somebody that I Used to Know", Kimbra sings her side of the story, making Gotye look not as innocent as the first verses made it seem. Because of the way songs are generally written, breakup songs are very one-sided and The Other is the one who looks bad while the narrator looks more like the victim. Gotye subverts this idea by having Kimbra sing her side of the story, making the song way more interesting, developed, and relatable, while emphasizing that this relationship is dead and both parties are hurt and bitter. Like "Somebody that I Used to Know", Brendon sings about the relationship from his point of view. Unlike "Somebody that I Used to Know", Brendon's verses are there to emphasize how this relationship, despite its problems, is alive and well. Without his point of view, "ME!" could be interpreted as being a self-centered breakup song of someone in denial. There's something romantic about the idea behind "I suck/I suck too, and I love you regardless" and this song understands the what makes this sort of narrative appealing. We all have problems and we all want to find someone who loves us despite our problems. The line that I think best encapsulates what makes this song work is "You're the only one of you/Baby that's the fun of you".

I was very pleasantly surprised with this song. I know I didn't talk too much about the music itself, but I think the strength of this song lies in the theme and the singers. The music is just the setting where this story takes place, and it does its job nicely. Even though Taylor Swift and Brendon Urie haven't written anything "good" per say in a long while, they are talented singers with a lot of personality in their voices. It's not anything revolutionary, and a lot of things could've gone very wrong. However,  I can safely say that this song is in fact ok (I'm tempted of even calling it good, for what it is). The one part of the song that objectively doesn't work at all is the "rap" break where they "spell" It's quite forgettable, but it does make me laugh due to how bad it is, so I'll let that part slide. When I first heard it, my first impression was "This sounds like Imagine Dragons or Lukas Graham if they didn't suck". Could it be that I like this song because comparatively there isn't much of anything in the pop charts to like? Maybe. There is something to keep in mind and that is that this IS a Taylor Swift song. It is unfair to listen to "ME!" and expect it to be the modern day equivalent of a Mozart composition. As far as Taylor Swift songs go, it is an improvement from "Look What You Made Me Do" and "End Game". Would I recommend this song? Not particularly, but if you have 3 minutes and 14 seconds to spare, I'd say give it a listen.

Song Review: "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" by Marilyn Manson

There are a lot of bands and artists I'm not a particular fan of, but I respect them greatly as Artists. As mentioned in my "Shape of You/Castle in the Sky" review, Ed Sheeran is one of them since I believe he can be making much better music if he focused more on his strengths as a musician rather than a pop star. Marilyn Manson is another one of these artists. I respect the man, his philosophy and artistic intent, more than I do his work. I just find his music boring most of the time since a lot of his appeal was the shock value and at the time that worked but now that the shock is gone, his songs have to rely on the strength of his music and lyrics. There are some great songs in his repertoire like "The Beautiful People". It is one of his most popular songs for a reason. The energy and the groove are superb. That driving drum beat and the almost percussive guitars create a dark, tense atmosphere. It's a great song with some great lyrics and commentary that still holds up on its own. However, there's one song that people always seem to bring up when it comes to Marilyn Manson: his cover of Eurythmic's "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)". I don't get it.


I'll go straight to the point. This song is BORING. A lot of the praise I hear about it is how Manson re-contextualized a song about sweet dreams and turned it into a nightmare. With the video, maybe. But you could play the original song over disturbing footage and get the same effect if you have a good enough editor.  Without the video, the song is boring, limp, and weak. I HAVE fallen asleep while listening to it. The song starts fine with a guitar playing the riff, and Manson softly singing over it. The problem, however, is that he doesn't know where to go from there. The bass kicks when Manson sings "Some of them want to use you" and then a distorted guitar lets a note ring on when he sings "Some of them want to abuse you". This is great for build up, when the bridge hits, all the buildup and atmosphere is gone. Why? Well, it's just guitars and bass playing eighth notes, switching between 2 chords. Furthermore, those chords are G# and G. They just play the power chords but if you played the full chord both of them would be major chords. So, that bridge while not exactly bright, it's not dark or eerie either. It's not dissonant and the rhythm is too mundane to create any sort of musical interest or atmosphere. And this is supposed to be the climax. The second verse is just as boring as the first, but the kick drums mark the beat this time. This song is so pedestrian and boring I'm struggling to find how to explain how boring it is since the arrangement is beyond basic and the song is very repetitive. If you hear the song all the way to the bridge, you've heard the entire thing, basically. Manson just adds more stuff like a solo (which also sounds bright since it's being played over major chords) and a wah-wah, which doesn't matter the context a but wah-wah pedal has never nor will it ever be scary.  Is there something Manson missed when deciding to make this cover?

If we go back to the original, what's the first thing that pops up? That synth, right? Yes, but also the kick drum marking the beat. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" is a very simple song, but here's the thing. The song is tight and tense. It is almost robotic. Even if the song is almost robotic on how precise and repetitive it is, it's not boring. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" builds on that one synth riff, adding and removing voices and harmonies to make the song more dynamic. Furthermore, those G# and G chords, along with some nice vocals, make the bridge feel almost ethereal, breaking the monotony of the main riff. This is not a chorus, or in other words: not a climax. The main riff IS the climax of the song. Note that around the 1 minute and 16 second mark, the song goes into a "pre-chorus" of sorts where it keeps building up as Annie Lennox repeats "Hold your head up/ Keep your head up, movin' along". This section builds up and where does it build up to? The Main synth riff. If you split this song into distinct sections, you'll only end up with 3 parts, and both parts 2 and 3 always go back to part 1: the synth riff.

So, what did Manson do wrong? Well, first off, his arrangement is more down beat, but it's not tense. I understand him wanting to create a feeling of something creeping up on you, but he missed one of the most important elements of the song. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" is a very tight and tense song and if you don't play it right, it loses all of its power. Secondly, the solo was played on the bridge of the song (the G#-G section of the song) which if you're gonna make a song dark, is a terrible decision. What confuses me is that in the original, the "solo" was played ON the main riff. This makes so much more sense in a metal song since the underlying chord progression is Cm-G#-G. You're playing on a minor chord, a minor scale, a darker tone. Lastly, Manson didn't seem to
understand the song he was covering and why it was written the way that it was, so when it came to "translating" it to his style, he changed the song in all the wrong places. There is one part that actually accomplishes what the song set out to do. After a pathetic guitar solo, around 3:10 into the song, Manson whispers his vocals in his signature creepy voice. And that genuinely sounds like a nightmare whispering into my ear right before I wake up with sleep paralysis.This song needed more of this sort of thing. Less distortion, less metal, less screaming. This song would've worked great with a softer sound. Make it creepier rather than aggressive. However, if you want to scream, make it more of a shriek, don't be afraid to go out of tune. Go big or go home if that's what your intention was. If Manson wanted to have the distortion guitars and the solos and the yells, he should've been wailing his vocals.You want some disturbing screams? The ones that'll haunt your nightmares?  Either Check out "Daddy" by Korn or anything by Silencer ("Death Pierce Me" or "Sterile Nails and Thunderbowels"). These songs are terrifying and disturbing like no other because they go all the way with their horror and pain, which is no surprise if you know the story behind the songs, but the point still stands. These songs are disturbing because they come from a real place of horror. "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These)" tries to be a place of horrors, but it just doesn't come across. However, these are superficial elements. Might they have made this song better? Probably, but not by much because he'd still miss that the song is tight and tense and that the "main riff" is the most important part of the song. Overall, I think this cover was a great idea but terribly executed.

Song Review: "La Cantiga de las Brujas" by Mägo de Oz

Weren't you sick and tired of 2018? I sure was, and I am so glad to finally be done with it. I know I should do an obligatory "Year End Retrospective" but I honestly don't think it's worth it since I can sum it up right here: BORING at best and Disastrous at worst. Juice WRLD is one of the worst things to happen to the radio this year, Maroon 5 is still a thing (and a terrible one at that), Bastille returned to the spotlight with a nothing song. Even Miyavi, who I cannot stop praising as a musician and ADORED his previous album "Samurai Sessions Vol. 2", released an ok and pretty forgettable follow-up with "Worlds Collide: Samurai Sessions Vol. 3". I don't know why 2018 was so bad in music, but it could be related to how everyone seems so depressed. Maybe the reason we can't make anything good is because we lack the energy/motivation to do so. In any case, if you wanted to know what 2018 was like, Post Malone is your man. His bad stuff is bad and his "good" stuff is just there. Doesn't do much, doesn't bother anyone, it just takes up space. But it is now officially 2019. Honestly I don't know how much worse music can get from here so I am kind of hopeful of what the new year can bring. Even my favorite band of all time, Mägo de Oz, is releasing a new album! They even released their first single today (January 3rd)! What a great way to start the new year, right?

So, for some context, ever since Jose Andrea left the group, Mägo de Oz has been in a little bit of a slouch. Losing their frontman would be devastating for any band, but I think they did a good job finding a replacement in Zeta (even if some fans might disagree with me). However, let me point out that Jose left in 2011, one year after releasing "Gaia III: Atlantia" and "Gaia: Epílogo". Since then, Mägo de Oz has released "Hechizos, Pócimas, y Brujería" (2012) and "Illusia" (2014). Other than that, it has been nothing but Greatest Hits/Compilation albums (some times with a gimmick like with "Celtic Land" which CD1 is a compilation of their old hits sung in English with guest singers and CD 2 is a compilation of their old hits sung in Spanish with guest singers), a live album ("Diabulus in Opera" in 2017), and "Finisterra: Opera Rock" (2015) which was a re-recording of their 2000's album "Finisterra". I'm not saying they're not staying active, I'm just saying that their well of creativity might be running dry. So you can't imagine how simultaneously excited and skeptical I was when they announced their new album "Ira Dei". Now that the first single has been released, does it live up to the expectations? Let's talk about "La Cantiga de las Brujas".

Once the song starts, it is very promising. It opens with a lute, a flue, and a violin. That folk-y/medieval sound is one of the things that made me fall in love with Mägo de Oz when I was a kid. Zeta's soft voice perfectly fits the Troubadour vibe of the instruments. The melody invites intrigue, it's not one to entertain but to tell a tale. The chord progression follows a simple Am-G-Em-Am for the first part of the phrase, and for the second half, the bass plays a walk up from an A, B to a C chord and then it follows to a G, Em, and back to Am. This is a fairly simple and common chord progression (I figured it out in 2 minutes) but it's very effective in setting tone and atmosphere. Plus the melody that the flute and violin play is simply beautiful. Once the Heavy Metal part of the song kicks in, it does sound like the classic Mägo de Oz sound that any fan would recognize. In addition to the flute and violin, there's a bagpipe playing the melody as the guitars and drums kick the song into gear. Everything seems to be going great but once the verse comes in, is all downhill from here. Zeta trying to sing low and "tough" doesn't work. His voice is not hard enough to pull that off. Plus, there's a call and response between Zeta and La Diva Satánica (I tried to find a name but apparently that's what she goes with) and she sings screamo. I don't think this is inherently bad. Adding some black metal elements to Mägo de Oz is not the weirdest thing Mägo has tried (that has to go to the Reggae sections in some of there songs), and it actually sounds pretty good. The phrasing is a little weird (that might have more to do with the fact that it's sung in Spanish, however I don't have time to go down this rabbithole of music and linguistics), but I think that overall it's alright. However, the problem with the screamo is that it emphasizes how soft and delicate Zeta's voice is. If they wanted this to work, Zeta had to sing something more melodic and soft to better contrast La Diva Satánica's voice. This would play to both singers' strengths instead of showcasing their downfalls. The rest of the song, musically, is ok. It's a standard Mägo de Oz song. If you're a fan of their music ("Hechizos, Pócimas, y Brujería" and "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida" specifically), you might enjoy it. However, Mägo de Oz are known for their poetic, profound, philosophical, and political lyrics. Lyrics of Love, Life, and Freedom.

Mägo de Oz are known for their poetic, profound, philosophical, and political lyrics... If "La Cantinga de las Brujas" was the first song you ever heard of Mägo de Oz, I guarantee you would call me a filthy liar setting you up for a scam. By god these lyrics are terrible! I personally don't think Mägo de Oz were particularly good at making Concept albums. The best one that tells a coherent story from start to finish has been "Jesús de Chamberí". "La Leyenda de la Mancha" comes as a close second but it's honestly just a retelling of Don Quixote, so it serves as more as a soundtrack than as a story. The Gaia trilogy supposedly has a story per album, but the songs better explore a theme than a story.
And their worst offender is "Finisterra" which is (from what I have found) basically a Ripoff of The Matrix which has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the songs. It seems that "Ira Dei" is shaping up to be their next attempt at storytelling but judging from this song, it's going to be a train wreck.  "La Cantiga de las Brujas" gives the impression that it is about something but it's really about nothing. My point is that even if their efforts of telling a story in their albums haven't been great, I love all of these albums because not only are the songs great, but they also explored the general themes of the stories they wanted to tell. Not to mentioned that they explored said themes in poetic, creative, and intelligent ways. "La Cantiga de las Brujas" doesn't. I know this album is about the Apocalypse because of the promo trailers and the title of the album ("God's Wrath"), but this song, as a first single, doesn't tell me anything about who the Anti-Christ is, the Apocalypse, the story, anything. It's a song about how cool and provocative witches are. The poetic imagery is either super corny, dumb, or nonexistent, and some of the lines are straight up awful. Not to mention that I find it hard to believe that the same band that wrote such provocative and thought-provoking lines like "In the name of Freedom, Faith in Oneself, and Peace, burn down the flags and say 'no' to religion. And may your god be a song written from the heart, and may your country be wherever your feet take you", "The only church that enlightens is the one that burns", and "For handfuls of progress I lost my freedom" are the same people who wrote this:

"To be a witch you don't need a costume,
Look at your Ex and you'll be convinced

If life one day gives you a stick
Make a broom out of it."

You may think that this sounds stupid because of the translation. Trust me, it sounds just as stupid as in Spanish. Seriously, what were they thinking? There's also this weird thing in the second half of the chorus where they use School metaphors. They actually say stuff like "This is Lucifer's School" and if you become a witch you must "Enroll". I'm not making this up, that's the actual language they use: not "join us" or "give in" but "Enroll". It begs me to ask what is the tuition.

It really is like watching the fall of the Roman Empire because their biggest claim about "Ira Dei" was that they were returning to their "Gaia II" sound. This is one of their best albums, with some of the best lyrics. What's important to keep in mind is that Mägo de Oz made drastic changes to their sound and image. Before "Gaia II", they were gypsies, troubadours, pirates, even. "Gaia II" was their darkest album. It was a risk but they decided to change their sound and image from Celtic Folk to Gothic. They were demons, singing about  witches, death, Satan, melancholy, darkness. I think that risk paid off. "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida" was a reinvention of the band, as well as an expansion of their sound. I get why they would want to go back to this era. Right now, Mägo de Oz has been in a difficult place. Ever since Jose left, they have been fighting against the shackles of his legacy and try to move on with someone new. They tried to move forward with 2 albums that as far as I can tell, didn't free them from their restraints. So, in a time where they want to move on, a reinvention might be just what they need. However, based on "La Cantiga de las Brujas", what should've been a triumphant return is going to a painful downfall.

Song Review: "thank u, next" by Ariana Grande

I've heard so many people talk about this song and how everyone is losing their minds over it. One night, someone asked me "What's the big deal? How come this song is so big?" My answer at the time was simply "Well, what else is there?" which to be fair, I'm not wrong. If you're like me and don't like Trap, there's really nothing for you on the radio since it'll either be something boring like "Better Now" by Post Malone or really stupid like "Lucid Dreams" by Juice WRLD. On the pop spectrum we still have songs like "Girls Like You" by Maroon 5 which is so bad and lazy it was clearly written in autopilot, or "Happier" by Marshmallow ft. Bastille which just doesn't work despite the song being ok. However, despite all of this, the influence of Trap has been taking over the other "styles" of Pop music in recent years. For instance, the vocal melodies in "Girls Like You" have similar phrasings and rhythms are those in "Better Now". However, I hadn't listened to the song at the time so my answer was merely a guess based on what I have heard before on the Hot 100 and from Ariana prior to this release. Now that I've actually listened to the song...


The music is nice. If you listen to an instrumental version, it's a very nice lullaby. A soothing piano playing one little phrase, a motif, that's sweet despite the dissonant notes in the harmony. Very ethereal. It's a song I can close my eyes and feel myself floating in space. It kind of reminds me a of the ending credits song from the anime Nichijou ("zzz" by Sasaki Sayaka). In fact, now that I think about it, a mashup between "thank u, next" and "zzz" might be a little too obvious. But see, here's the first problem with the song, and it's not the music in itself, not at all. "zzz" is a song about going to sleep and waiting excitedly for the next day as it's going to be another fun-filled day, and the music reflects that. It's a gentle song with soft melodies that could cradle you to sleep, but its also a happy tune with a jumpy rhythm to reflect that excitement for what's to come. "thank u, next", also has a soft melody, and as I mentioned before, a sweet ethereal motif. However, as far as I can tell, the topic of the song (which I'll get into later) and the tone seem to be heavily inspired by the movie Mean Girls. Even the title "thank u, next" makes me think that this was going to be a song of Ariana bashing her ex-boyfriends and how they never really meant anything to her. Sounds rude and dismissive.While the song seems to be more introspective, there's still that mean spiritness looming over the lyrics (particularly in the chorus) and specially in the music video which is basically an homage to Mean Girls (seriously, why is that movie so damn popular all of the sudden...?). The result of this disconnect between what Ariana wants to do and the music is doing comes forward in the vocals. Ariana is a good singer, but she's overdoing it in this song. At first I thought the problem was her voice. Ariana is a power singer, and this song needed a sweeter, softer, voice. However, this assumption is wrong. She is singing in the right tone and volume (although the overdubs and the production go way too far and definitely kill the vibe) but the vocal melody is too harsh. This needed something more melodic, not something inspired from Hip Hop.


When you read something, you're tone of voice will naturally adapt to the general feel of what you're reading. If you read The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe, you're probably going to instinctively read it in a different tone of voice than you would Green Eggs & Ham by Dr. Seuss. What does this have to do with anything? Everything. The lyrics of "thank u, next" are for the most part very harsh and mean, and maybe that's why despite Ariana singing softly, it comes across as something harder. At first, this song caught my attention because, as I mentioned before, I thought it was going to be a song of Ariana empowering herself by trash talking her exes, which turned out to be not wrong but not in the way I thought. The impression I get from this song is that it's about Ariana reflecting on her past relationships, why they failed, and how those failures allowed her to grow and mature as a person. This is such a mature, bittersweet, somber, and joyful topic to tackle. She adds to this beautifully interesting subject by suggesting in the second verse that she met someone who loves her and will not leave her no matter what. This person is implied to be herself. What a wonderful moral to sing in a time where depression and anxiety is growing in the general population. Time to ruin it with cursing and Hip Hop slang. I'm sorry but the word contractions, verses like "but this one gon' last", "that shit's amazing", and "I'm so f***ing grateful for my ex" take away from a song that otherwise would be mature and introspective. It sounds childish with all the swears. It reminds me of when I was in 6th grade and my classmates would add unnecessary swears to every sentence because they thought that was the adult thing to do. Not to mention that for lyrics that sound so bittersweet, it's such a shame that we go back into this Mean Girls nonsense in the chorus by repeating "Thank you, next". That line shouldn't be in a song about growth or self love. I guess after the first verse it kind of makes sense if you squint at it. Ariana reminisces about some of her exes and answers with "Thank you, next". A little mean spirited and dismissive but at least the message can be interpreted as "it's time to move on". After the second verse, though, this interpretation falls apart since she's talking about herself. Who is she saying "Thank you, Next" to? Herself? This seems very counter productive to the idea of self love. Then, on the verse before the last chorus, she sings about her wedding and walking the aisle with her mother and thanking her father right before she sings "Thank you, next" to...? See the problem here?


Why is this song so big? I still think because there really isn't anything else. Ariana Grande is the only performer who has really manage to balance the current sounds of R&B and Hip Hop that's trending and Traditional Pop Music. For those who like more traditional Pop, what do we have? Maroon 5? That's disgusting, no thank you. "thank u, next" is not that bad a song, musically, at least. I'd be very happy to hear an instrumental Jazz arrangement  of this song. However, the problems in tone, lyrics, and vocal delivery are what kills it for me. Plus, I'm just sick and tired of the sound of the current pop centrism. A sound that doesn't inspire, challenge, or excites. A sound that's just there. Would I recommend the song? Probably not. The instrumentals are nice but not interesting enough to tell someone to check it out (although I'd love that instrumental Jazz arrangement I mentioned) and the lyrics are not worth looking into as they are written. If the song had better (or rather, more inspired writers), then it might've worked. But as is, all I have to say about it is: Thank you, next.



UPDATE:  I don't usually do updates but I felt this needed to be addressed. I don't follow celebrity news at all, so when I wrote this I didn't know about Ariana's personal life. When you do know about it, this song makes a whole lot of sense. Lines like "He was an Angel" take a whole 'nother meaning once you know who she's talking about and, most importantly, what happened to him. However, I don't think this changes anything about what I said about the song but rather reinforces my critiques. All the cursing and the slang doesn't add to such an emotional and personal song, it takes away from it. Specially now that I know that she wasn't singing from an abstract concept but real, personal experience. She may not be singing about 100% real events necessarily, but she's singing about real people and real feelings. Not to mention the tone is even more of a problem now. The snarky/mean attitude in the song makes sense for some of her bad relationships, but not for her relationship with Mac Miller, for example. The very dismissive attitude of the chorus almost suggests she didn't care about him which, from what I can find, it's completely not true.

Song Review: "Alexander Hamilton" by Lin-Manuel Miranda/ "Alexander Anderson" by Team Four Star

It's been 3 years since Hamilton hit the stage and swept the entire nation as the new, hottest show on Broadway. Lin-Manuel Miranda, the man behind the play and its music, has gotten a reputation after Hamilton and his work in Disney's Moana. As someone who was part of the theater club in college, I have heard the Hamilton soundtrack over and over again and I never thought too much of it.  However, last year around October, YouTube Channel Team Four Star released their 8th Episode for Hellsing Abridged and in that episode they made a parody of the opening number of Hamilton to send off one of the main characters: Alexander Anderson. I adored this version and get carried away every time I listen to it. Why? This review is mostly an analysis on why I liked one version so much when the original version of the song was so forgettable. Because this is a song from a musical, however, the context and its role in the larger story is important. Songs in any good musical tell the story and further the plot. Not viewing "Alexander Hamilton" (and by extension, "Alexander Anderson" as well) in the context of the grander picture would do a great disservice to the song (fortunately, it is the opening number of the play). Also, I won't be talking about the lyrics too much because they serve their purpose and there's nothing that strikes me particularly interesting on either song. In other words, this analysis and comparison is strictly musical (composition, arrangement, and its relevance and effectiveness on each song's respective stories). One last thing before we dive in, I'll be calling Lin-Manuel Miranda's version "Hamilton" and Team Four Star's version "Anderson" to avoid any confusion.


The first thing I've didn't liked about "Hamilton" is, ironically enough, the rapping. The rhythm and syncopation doesn't sound groovy and very out of breath. In "Hamilton", everyone sounds very uncomfortable singing their parts. I don't know how to explain it, but their delivery sounds forced (I'll come back to this later).  As an opening number, however, it is the perfect song: starting with an loud opening, followed by a string ensemble transitioning to a lower, softer, tone to catch the audience's attention. The way the song builds in intensity eases and engages the audience into the story. Not to mention, this song tells you who the main character is, and introduces other characters and their impressions of Alexander Hamilton. Lin-Manuel Miranda had to summarize 20 years of a man's life before the play began and this song was a good way to naturally dump exposition, not to mention set the tone for the rest of the play.

"Anderson", on the other hand, took an interesting approach. As a parody, it obviously made the changes to fit their story and characters. But, instead of the opening number, "Anderson" is the closing song. This change affects the tone of the song, somewhat. While in Hamilton the song is used as an introduction to the character, Team Four Star used the song as a Eulogy, a Memorial. In "Hamilton", one of the characters sings before the final chorus "I'm the damn fool that shot him" but this doesn't come across, in my opinion, as a character moment but rather a fact. Again, we are just being introduced to these characters so this statement has no emotional impact. This is knowledge, not emotion. "Anderson" changes the line to "I'm the vampire that shot him" to keep in spirit of the characters of their story. However, this line now has weight to it. When Alucard sings this line, there's an impact unlike when Burr sings it, because the relationship between the characters has been established in one but not in the other. Moving the song to the end allowed that line, and many of the lyrics of the song, to have weight. This is the second problem that I see with the original: either it doesn't understand how to create emotion and just works as exposition, or it assumes that we know American history and the characters beforehand to force a response out of us (which would be incompetent from a story telling perspective). One might argue that once you see the play and re-listen to the song, you feel that emotion because you have experienced the life of Hamilton. The counter argument would be that Team Four Star didn't assume anything so the song hits you on the first listen. The songs are essentially the same, but the "when" the song is played made one version a lot better than the other. "Hamilton" is an exposition song. "Anderson" is a eulogy song. A book can tell you about a character, a song can make you feel it.

As mentioned before,  I don't like the delivery in the original song. could it be awkward songwriting or the singers themselves? The way the cast sings the song seems forced and it feels like they are always dragging behind and trying to catch up to the beat. Why? Let's look at how the song is written. The song accentuates the weak beats. This syncopation may be the reason with why it may sound like the song is dragging or stretching the melody. The problem with this assumption is that is Eminem did this in "Shake That" (ft. Nate Dogg) and it didn't sound dragged or stretched.  Maybe the way these singers were trained did not match the singing techniques required to pull off this song and that's what made it sound awkward. So, how does Team Four Star compare? Well, they fair a lot better than the Hamilton cast. They seem a lot more comfortable with this style of singing than the Hamilton cast (plus extra points because most of the cast of Hellsing Abridged are changing their voice and/or faking accents while singing). In "Anderson", it sounds less forced and more natural. I cannot really explain why or how one sounds more natural than the other, but to put it simply: "Hamilton" feels like if Frank Sinatra tried to rap. One is more in its element than the other.

The instrumental arrangement is what makes all the difference. Lin-Manuel Miranda's version and Team Four Star's parody are essentially the same song. So whatever is good about one is good about the other (in terms of composition). "Hamilton" consists of a piano, a string ensemble, a drum machine, drums, and maybe a guitar. Again, a lot of the hoopla behind Hamilton was "modern"/"contemporary" musical gimmick of using the elements of rap and electronic music. I call it a gimmick because in the grander scheme of things, these elements add nothing to the story.

Furthermore, they don't blend well in "Hamilton". When the drum machine kicks in, there is no transition, no lead-in, nothing. It just starts while being accentuated by an overly dramatic strumming of the string section, and instead of creating a new dynamic level organically, it feels like a forced stop in the momentum in the song just so it can jam this drum track where it doesn't belong. This is where the song loses me. When the rest of the instruments are re-instated, these elements work a little better together but not by a whole lot. When I said the build up in the song "Hamilton" was good, I was referring to the idea. I have no doubt this was the intended, but the execution of this idea will fall flat if the proper lead-ins, or transitions, aren't used. In order for the song to build up, it has to do it naturally. You can drastically change the style of a song, the tempo, the time signature, the rhythm, but these changes are meant to stop a song's momentum and take it in a different direction. They are not meant to build up to a climax. The drum machine is really a bigger problem than it should. Going back to not adding anything to the plot, rapping can be done acoustically, so in the context of a Period Piece Musical while not a genre or musical style present in the time period, it can fit as rapping is essentially fast talking poetry. The drum machine is not. Some People might argue that the addition of the drum machine doesn't matter because the music in a musical is not a physical element in universe (i.e. people don't literally break into song). However, it absolutely does matter and here is why: Music tells a story. The instruments you choose, when they play, and what they are playing is important to the story. You don't put a Heavy Metal guitar on a song about tranquility. In a musical, this goes double. The Phantom of the Opera doesn't have songs written as an opera just because Andrew Loyd Webber wanted it that way, or Marc Shaiman didn't use Rhythm and Blues in Hair Spray (which is set in the 1960's) just because he thought it would be cool. The music was written selectively to be the brushes utilize that paint the canvas, not adornments. What is the purpose of all of this modern production on Hamilton? This is mainly what Team Four Star got right.

"Anderson" consists of a piano, a string ensemble, drum machine, drums, a brass section, church bells, and choir. Naturally, "Anderson" has a richer and fuller sound because of the addition of a brass section and choir. But that's not what fixes the problems "Hamilton" has in regards to musical arrangement. First, let's talk about the introduction of the troublesome drum machine. In "Hamilton", the drum machine takes over, overpowering the snapping of the fingers (the percussion up to that point) and the piano. In "Anderson", when the drum machine kicks in, what accentuates its arrival is not the strings, but a church bell. First of all, the soft ringing of the bell keeps a somber tone, but most importantly accentuates the introduction of the drum machine in a less jarring way. Also, the volume of said drum machine is way lower in "Anderson" than in "Hamilton" so it doesn't overshadow the rest of the instruments in the song. It doesn't feel forced or jammed. It feels like a natural progression. Another thing that helps the transition into the drum machine is that Alucard doesn't change his singing style when it hits. When Burr sings that part, he is trying so hard to sound like a rapper that it makes the transition even more noticeable and forced. Alucard does sing with a little more intensity but his vocal delivery is not that different from his first verse. The other problem Team Four Star fixes is that every instrument played has a purpose in the song. Who is Alexander Anderson? Alexander Anderson is a Catholic Priest, a member of the Iscariot Organization. A man fully devoted to God and killing Vampires and other demons (and heathens). The inclusion of the church bells and the choir play into the character  of Alexander Anderson. The inclusion of a brass section creates a heroic and epic tone on many parts of the song, and what is a vampire hunter but a hero? Furthermore, now the drum machine is not out of place anymore! While Team Four Star never establishes a date for when the series is happening (and neither does the original anime), the references and jokes made in every episode maked it very clear that the show (at least the parody) is set in present day. This fusion of the Old and the New merge better in "Anderson" because the setting and the character already merge the old traditions and the new world.


The song "Hamilton" is a brilliant way to get exposition out of the way and it kind of sets the tone for the rest of the play, however it fails to connect with the audience emotionally at that juncture. We get to know the characters to some degree but we don't get to feel their importance or influence in relation to each other (specially at that "I shot him" line), and every instrument and creative decision seems to be there for no other reason than "just because". "Anderson" took what was originally exposition and turned it into a surprisingly fitting and heartbreaking sendoff to the character. Every instrument matches and reflects the tone, the setting, and/or the story as a whole. Everything each character sings about Alexander Anderson means something because we got to know the whole cast..

This review was really for me to understand and clarify why I didn't like something so popular, yet enjoyed the parody infinitely more than the original. "Hamilton" had all the potential for greatness but failed to meet it. Once I took a deeper look into both versions I understood that it was about timing, delivery, and purpose. The simple and seemingly innocuous elements are what ended up breaking a song.

Song Review: "Flashback" by Miyavi (ft. KenKen)

Does anyone else remember when music was supposed to be good? Japanese guitarist Miyavi apparently remembers. On November 7th, 2017, Miyavi released Samurai Sessions Vol. 2 and it is amazing. This album is heavily influenced by Pop and Electronic music yet still holds on to its Rock edge. Long story short, give it a listen. It is seriously amazing and if I knew this existed when I did my Year End Retrospective, this would've most certainly been on the Best Songs of the Year category, undoubtedly. If you're still not convinced, the best way I can sum it up is: It's like "Something Just Like This" combining Electronic Music and Rock... but its actually original and creative. And/or I could say that it is like "Thunder" by Imagine Dragons... but Not terrible. If those comparisons don't convince you, then allow me to demonstrate to you why this album should be listened to by analyzing the most popular song of the album: "Flashback"

Where do I even begin...? "Flashback" is a collaboration between Miyavi and Japanese bass player KenKen. Now, if I'm completely honest, songs like "Forget You" and "No Thanks Ya" would be more of the breakout hits under normal circumstances as they are more traditionally Pop (still with a Rock edge). Those songs are more reminiscent of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj whereas "Flashback" is still Pop, but it is quite an odd song. "Flashback" had something that the other songs didn't. however: A vessel. "Flashback" got as popular as it did because it is the opening of an anime called Kokkoku. While the anime was not particularly good (from what I understand, I haven't seen it), "Flashback" caught the attention of the anime community by being one of the best opening songs of the season (if not, the best).

How did "Flashback" achieve this? To make it easy on myself, I'm going to split the song into the A Section and the B Section. Keep in mind, a guitarist who plays slap and a bass player who plays slap playing on a song together, you are guaranteed an amazing funk-like groove. "Flashback" delivers immensely on that and even goes beyond by giving 10 times what it promised. The beat in the A Section and the B Section are both amazing, brimming with energy.  The beat and the groove are hard hittingly wonderful and it all stems from not only the musical composition but the fact that the bass and guitar are playing with so much fun over this beat that it is contagious. That is not to say that is its only strength. What makes the song so accessible is simplicity and the way it is written:
In the A Section we have a verse (an introduction with little instrumental accompaniment), the drop (where the beat, and the song, kick in), Repetition of the first verse (with full instrumental accompaniment), the drop (with added percussion), then the bridge into the B Section. It is a short song, and while it is musically complex, it's fun, catchy, energetic and contagious. The oddities begin from the moment the song kicks in (at the first drop): the bass plays a short riff, funky as expected from KenKen, but when played with Miyavi's guitar riff (aided with a Pitch Shifter, giving it a more electronic tone to the guitar) it sounds kind of disjointed, which is not helped by the drums which land the beat on the weak beat. At the drop, the song becomes very minimal, allowing you to hear this strange cacophony with no distractions. But it works. Why? Well, needless to say the drop is not actually disjointed, it's the bass and guitar riffs that create this illusion but it is just an illusion. The bass and guitar even share the first 2 notes of the riff before branching out into their separate paths and the back beat creates a funky/dance beat for it all to take place. The reason it's so minimal is because Miyavi wants to feel the groove, get familiarized with the beat before he adorns it later with more percussion and effects when we come back to it. Not to mention, that drop, the guitar riff played by Miyavi, is catchy as hell. Listen to it once and it'll be in your head for a while.

About one third through the song, the bridge leads in to the B Section where the music comes to a sudden stop. This section is actually very simple. It's only one stanza, 8 bars which repeat over, and over, and over again. A group of backup singers (which sound like children voices) sing:

                 Japanese Phonetic                                                         English Translation

" Don't Stop Modoranai Flashback                            " Don't Stop No Turning Back Flashback
  Look Up Kidzukeba It's all Past                                Look Up Realize It's all Past
  Too Fast Hikisakaresou sa Ahh~ Ahh~ "                  Too Fast We're Almost Torn Apart Ahh~ Ahh~ "

While simple, this is one of those cases where simplicity is best. The song repeats these 8 bars 9 times in total (I counted). It's 2 minutes of the same 8 bars. Doesn't it get boring? On principle, yes. In Practice, not only does it not get boring, it works wonderfully. The First time it plays, the only things you hear is the choir and a gentle synth laying out the chords. The Second time it plays, the bass kicks in with a funky (and very impressive) bass riff that creates tension as the kick drum marks the tempo. The Third time it comes around, the snare drum comes in laying the backbeat and the chords are now reinforced by the guitar making them clearer. The Fourth time it comes around its the kicker: everything up until now has been buildup to this moment and that's when the instruments come at full force as Miyavi plays some fills to accompany the rest of the song until the 6th repetition. Then he plays a guitar solo on top of all this on the 7th repetition where he plays this pretty dark harmonic riff to contrast the "funky party" feel of the song until the 9th repetition where the song once again comes back down to the choir and the guitar laying out the chords.

The reason why this repetition works and it's not tedious nor it gets boring is because the song is very dynamic and the repetition is used to build up to a climax and then come back down to a resolution. It's actually the same reason "Shape of You" works despite the song being literally one 8 bar riff. Like Ed Sheeran, Miyavi starts simple and as the song progresses through each part he adds something to keep the momentum going, yet he keeps it familiar. It is a way for us, the listener, to anchor ourselves and latch on to something as the artist keeps adding more and more stuff on top of this core. While Ed Sheeran does this throughout the entire song through very subtle ways, Miyavi makes explicit additions unto the song with each repetition. Starting simple and gradually adding the other elements to the song is a great way to make the song dynamic, and by the time we hit the climax (around repetition number 4) we are so familiarized with the song that all we have to do is jam with it. By the time the 9th repetition comes around and the song dials back down to a calmer note, we are left with a kind of "high".


"Flashback" is an amazing song, 10/10. If knew this existed when I did my year end review, any song from "Samurai Sessions vol. II" would've been easily my pick for best song of the year, but specially this one. This song is fun, energized, contagious, and an all around good time. Every time I listen to it, I have to play it again several times to satisfy that "high" this song gives. I didn't go into details of the lyrics because they aren't that important to the song. They're not particularly good per say (they aren't bad either). It just feels amazing to sing along (trust me). Safe to say that "Flashback" is all about the music: making sure the song sounds good and feels good. The lyrics, to me, are simply  means to that end. I had the honor to see this song being performed live and I guarantee the energy present in the album version is half of what it is like to listen this song Live. To me, it is such a shame that quality work like this is relegated to a niche market while in the mainstream we keep getting garbage like Maroon 5 and Imagine Dragons. Miyavi succeeded where other rock bands have failed: make a Pop album with a rock edge. Unlike Imagine Dragons's "Thunder" which highlights the worst that Rock and Pop can offer, Miyavi's "Flashback" highlights the best of what this combo can do for you. What can I say but give "Flashback" a listen. While you're at it, give the entire album a listen as well.

Song Review: "La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz

If I were asked my top 3 favorite songs of all time, the songs that would come to mind are (from worst to best) "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" by The Beatles and "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen. The last song would be "La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz. Now, let me come clean and clear up an argument that I'm sure someone will point out: Mägo de Oz is my favorite band of all time. Aren't I'm being biased to call this song "the best song of all time" because it's by my favorite band of all time? While that is a fair question, the answer is NO. Here's why:


1) This song is not my favorite song of all time because is by Mägo de Oz. Mägo de Oz is my favorite band of all time BECAUSE of this song. I will go into detail as to why this song is a masterpiece in this review, but for now let's make it clear that I'm not blinded by my "fanboy" mind.

2) If I am to be a critic, I MUST remain 100% objective when looking at any piece of work, regardless of who is it by. In fact, the arguments I despise the most are the ones defending a piece of work just because is made by this one renowned artist, like it has been the case with "Baby Driver" where the biggest argument in favor of it has been that it was made by Edgar Wright. "Baby Driver" is a terrible movie because it's a terrible movie and Edgar Wright has nothing to do with how good or bad this movie turned out to be.

3) I will admit when something is not good. Mägo de Oz is not perfect and they have made a lot of terrible music alongside great songs. In fact, there are bands I have more consistently praised like Wagakki-Band and Diablo Swing Orchestra than I have Mägo de Oz (to the point when people are surprised when I tell them that Mägo de Oz is indeed my favorite band).

4) This is mostly a disclaimer: "La Cantata del Diablo" has a lot of religious imagery and the song brutally attacks the Catholic Church (it even ends with a perversion of the Pater Noster prayer that serves as a giant middle finger to the church) so it'll be undoubtedly controversial. When talking about the lyrics, I will explain the context and how it's not really about religion at all but if you're getting offended just by reading this, then you should probably stop reading this. My suggestion would be keep an open mind and check the song out but if that's not what you want, you're free to do as you please.


"La Cantata del Diablo" was released in 2005 as the album closer for the second album in the Gaia Trilogy "Gaia II: La Voz Dormida". This is a monster of a song to review as it is 21 minutes and 11 seconds in length. Furthermore, I would call this song a "One Act Musical". Musically speaking, it has 3 lead singers, 3 guitars (acoustic and electric), 1 bass, 1 keyboard, 1 drummer, 1 lead violin and one lead flute, a band of bagpipes, and orchestra, and a choir. Wikipedia is also telling me the song also has a Caxixi, a Bodhrán, a Piccolo, and a Tamboril and although it's not listed, I can also hear a Rainstick. As far as I know, this song has only been performed live once and understandably so. "La Cantata del Diablo" doesn't have all these instruments just because. Mägo de Oz uses each one to create a mood and varying sonic textures to create a song with a wide dynamic range while shifting in tone and musical genre. "La Cantata del Diablo" is a masterpiece and it is 21 minutes because that's how long the song needed to be to give the music time to fully unravel and be displayed at its full potential. The song is also divided in movements/chapters and they each sound different, allowing the song to never become tiresome or boring.

On a general level, the music is beautifully composed and the symphonic aspects of the piece and the Heavy Metal aspects of the piece are not only handled wonderfully, but the relation between the two is fully taken advantage of. For instance, when the song starts (after the a big choir singing in latin), it starts with an acoustic guitar playing a sweet yet dark arpeggio (in D minor) while the flute and violin play the melody. It's a beautiful sound but it keeps an air of mystery and dread. Once the character of the inquisitor enters the stage, the heavy distorted guitars and the heavy beating drums come in changing the mood entirely from a dark eerie calm to a violent confrontation. It elevates to "base level" intensity which is more typical of what you'd expect from a power metal song, but never losing the theatricality as the characters sing back in forth to each other. When it comes back down, it returns to the calm but it's not eerie anymore. While still in D minor, the way the guitar is strummed (not fingerpicked) plus the addition of instruments like the Rainstick create a soothing tone (fitting as it is when the character supposedly dies and meets his god). On an individual level, the song has what you expect from top level musicians. While it is not Prog Rock solos, the solos in "La Cantata del Diablo" are superb, and everyone is forced to play. There are multiple guitar and keyboard solos but there is also a bass solo, bagpipes solo, and multiple flute and violin solos. Everyone gets to show off and it is so top notch that when they played it Live, many of the solos were changed (most of the musicians who played in this song were gone by the time they played it live). This was just a sample of what listening to "La Cantata del Diablo" is like. It is truly an experience that I cannot fully describe in a concise manner. Speaking of that only live version of the song, I can understand why. While, if I'm honest, it's not a complex Progressive Metal song with multiple strange time signatures and Jazz chords, it is a hard song to pull off AND to pull of well. When Mägo de Oz decided to play it live it was because they had the right amount of musicians, budget, coordination, and rehearsal time to pull it off. This goes to show how good of a song this is that the band didn't even attempt to play it live unless they knew they had everything they needed to recreate the experience "La Cantata del Diablo" provides when you listen to the studio version.

"La Cantata del Diablo" uses satanic imagery (the whole album does, actually) and it attacks very harshly the catholic church. The song doesn't wait any time by starting with a choir singing in latin "In the name of the devil and Belial, Satan, Lucifer, Astaroth, and Yahweh". As mentioned in the disclaimer, this in itself might be controversial and offensive to many, but bare in mind the following: The religious imagery used in the song is a metaphor for the greater issue at hand. Mägo de Oz is not a band of Satan Worshippers criticizing Catholicism but attacking the idea of Religion and how people have corrupted it to benefit their own needs and control the masses. Why from a perspective of  Satanism? Well, the simple answer is "they're a metal band". However, while there is Satanic imagery, the main character doesn't worship Satan in actuality, but Gaia. In fact, the story of "La Cantata del Diablo" is about an Aztec named Azaak who is captured by the sent to burn to death by the Inquisition for refusing to convert and be baptized. Satanism doesn't play a direct part on the narrative or the content of the song, but I do believe it plays a part on the theme of the song (and the band as a whole). In my research on Satanism, one of the things that jumped out to me were the values of Independence, Respect, and Education and Knowledge which is almost one to one with the philosophy of Mägo de Oz in general. If I could sum up the creed of the song and the band with one line it would be "In the name of Freedom, Faith in Oneself, and Peace, burn down the flags and say 'no' to religion. And may your god be a song written from the heart, and may your country be wherever your feet take you". Despite "La Cantata del Diablo" being a direct attack on the church and Catholicism, the song can and almost begs to be interpreted in a grander umbrella. The song is about freedom from the shackles of religion, politics, and a cry to break down the barriers that keep us divided as human beings. Although, on the note of giving the Catholic Church a giant middle finger, the song ends with a perversion of the Pater Noster called "El Salmo de los Desheredados" (translated as "Psalm of the Disinherited") which is just a brutal critique on Catholicism with lines like "It doesn't matter if you are a triune. With one willing to help would be enough" and "Our daily bread are rapes, gender violence, pederasty, dictatorships, and climate change". In short, its a showcase of everything religion has promised contrasted with what we actually have. However, they way it is written says that is not just a "I hate religion, and god, because it makes me angry" kind of criticism, but a call to action to bind together. The prayer starts "Our Father, of All of Us, of the poor, of the homeless, of the disinherited and those without protection. Of those who follow you and those who worship you no longer". We are ALL the disinherited, abandoned by this "Fatherly God". The prayer reinforces this notion by asking "What is thy Kingdom? The Vatican? The Banks? The high politics? Our kingdom is Nigeria, Ethiopia, Colombia, Hiroshima". It is harsh, gripping, and inspiring, to be honest. It's not destructive to be destructive. It is not dark for the sake of being dark and edgy. It is a psalm to break down the walls that have separated us for far too long.

"La Cantata del Diablo" by Mägo de Oz is a monster of a song and well worth your time. I encourage you to give it a listen and not let the language barrier stop you from giving this song a chance. I understand this song is not for everyone due to its length, genre, and sure, political, social, and religious points of view. However there's no denying the level of artistry Mägo de Oz has achieved with this song with well written lyrics, well composed and arranged music, and thought provoking message. "La Cantata del Diablo" is in the end a song of Freedom and Unity. When Mägo de Oz played this song live in Mexico, not only was everyone singing and cheering the entire song but when the "Psalm of the Disinherited" came up, the cheering stopped. The claps and screams stopped. Everyone began praying. Line by Line, every single line of the psalm resonated through the arena. 22 thousand people with their heads held up high as they scream to the heavens "Our Father, of all of us. Why have you forgotten us? Our Father, Blind, Deaf, and with nothing to do, why have you abandoned us" was awe inspiring to me. This to me is what the song wanted to achieve: a community of brothers and sisters. Music is said to bring people together of different backgrounds, ethnicities, creeds, and nationalities. This has certainly been echoed with bands like BABYMETAL where I have gone to a concert with undeniable hardcore metalheads and people how don't even like metal at all, or Miyavi who practices this philosophy and uses it to further humanitarian efforts. "La Cantata del Diablo" is the song, to me, that actively tries to achieve this through its powerful and enticing music.

Avengers: Infinity War (Quick Analysis)

As many predicted, Infinity War was a big event and people knew that it was going to be big because many will die. What people didn't know is the scale. Reactions on social media and the memes coming out of the Marvel fan community have centered (on the most part) on how Infinity War left them emotionally wrecked. I went to watch it and... I think all these people need to watch Madoka Magica to know what being emotionally wrecked is really like. To be clear, the movie is good. It has the Marvel standard of quality: it's serious, dumb, funny, engaging, and entertaining in all the right places. Infinity War is a solid 8/10. However, the biggest impact according to fans failed in my eyes. Why?
To be clear, this is NOT a review on the movie. If you seen any Marvel movie, you know what to expect from this. If you didn't like it, you probably didn't like any of the other movies so why did you watch this one? Again, solid 8/10. Also, since I will be focusing on character deaths and the villain there will be a huge amount of spoilers (and in this movie, there are a lot, so watch the movie before reading this).

First, let's talk about Thanos. He is a good villain. Nothing more to say there. For a character that isn't really intimidating, everyone who worked on him really succeeded in making him a believable threat. Strangely enough, also sympathetic, which was a pleasant surprise. I felt for Thanos, which didn't make me root for him but it did make him more of a three dimensional character and not just some generic evil intergalactic schoolyard bully. So, what's my problem with Thanos? Well, not with him exactly, but what he becomes by the end of the film. By the end of the movie, Thanos obtains all infinity stones, making him the most powerful being in the universe. The problem with this is that not only are we told about what he is able to do with that power, but we see it. The Villain won. Creating a challenge for our heroes is fine, but Thanos defeated our heroes starting with one stone and now he has all of them, and half of the heroes are dead. Not to mention that among the stones he has, he possesses a stone that can warp reality and a stone that can reverse time (with no clear limits on these powers). I've seen this scene before. The anime Soul Eater walked through this exact plot line (Spoilers for Soul Eater, if you haven't finished it): Asura needed to do something to become completely invincible... and then he does. Then, this invincible entity that even Death couldn't beat is defeated by getting punched in the face by a 14 year old girl. The anime tries to shoe horn an explanation on how Courage defeats Madness (I guess using the same logic as Rock-Paper-Scissors) but I think anyone who has watched the anime can agree that it was absolutely terrible. The way Infinity War ended has me worried more about the writers than the heroes (more on that on the second point). Thanos, by the universe's own rules, has become too powerful which will lead to either a gimmicky Deus Ex Machina (which may or may not involve Captain Marvel) or some logically sound but unsatisfying ending. I will definitely see the next Avengers movie, but only to see how the writers get themselves out of this corner.

Second, let's talk about death. A lot of characters died in Infinity War, MANY of them unceremoniously. People's been reacting mostly the way they're supposed to: sad and mourning. I, on the other hand, am just asking one thing: "Ok... out of all of the characters who died, how many of them will STAY dead"? Here's why I don't buy most of the character deaths in Infinity War.

(Casualties: Loki, Vision, Gamora, Winter Soldier, Drax, Groot, Mantis, Starlord, Spiderman, Doctor Strange, Falcon, Black Panther, Maria Hill, and Nick Fury)

1) It was never established that a main character could die in this universe like in Game of Thrones or Mahou Shojo Madoka Magica. It's very unlikely they would kill so many characters this late in the game. "They killed Quicksilver" you might say, but Quicksilver was pretty much introduced to be killed. "They could go the Harry Potter route" you say and sure, that could be true, except that Harry Potter started killing characters  at the end of the series to make the War of the Wizards mean something in regards to narrative stakes, and to prevent the temptation of wanting to bring back the ones who died. We know that Marvel has plenty of movies coming (including for those killed in Infinity War). Furthermore, it has been established more times in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that characters can cheat death. Furthermore, characters have more consistently cheated death in this movie than they have actually died. To the point were Thanos had to break the fourth wall to tell us "Yes, Loki is dead. For Real this time". Death in this universe means very little from a reality point of view and an In-universe point of view.

2) Many of the deaths mean nothing to the plot. When it comes to characters who stay dead, Vision and Gamora would make sense because their deaths served a purpose. That's the kind of movie this is. Nick Fury, Maria Hill, and Falcon could stay dead because (like Quicksilver) they are not that big of characters to kill off while still being beloved to have an emotional reaction. But let's be honest here... Killing Doctor Strange is outlandish enough. 3/4 of the Guardians of the Galaxy, they are certainly coming back because you know Marvel wouldn't kill Guardians of the Galaxy 3. Killing off Spiderman after all the legal battle with Sony for his rights? KILLING OFF BLACK PANTHER!? Of course Marvel would kill off their most celebrated movie (which is still on the theaters, by the way, and has a sequel in production).

I can't feel emotionally invested in these character deaths because most of the Deaths in Infinity War are inconsequential. In Game of Thrones they established early on that ANYONE can die at ANY TIME (no plot armor for nobody). Madoka Magica killed one of their leads by episode 3. Establishing this in the narrative is not just for shock and stakes. It establishes a universal rule in the world we are exploring: Death is an unforgiving mistress. In the Marvel Universe this was never established. Death happened to make you sad or to further the plot, and even then, it was a supporting character or villain, NEVER a lead. So, killing off so many leads this late in the game is simply not believable. Furthermore, if Marvel tries to shoe horn all of these deaths as permanent, well... most are unsatisfying deaths. Again, only Vision and Gamora died in any significant way. Everyone else just vanished into a puff of smoke. It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense either from a business/marketing perspective nor a narrative perspective.

Movie Non-Review: Death Note (2017)

I'm going to give in and talk about Netflix's attempt at a Death Note movie. Before I do, I need to clear some things up.
1) Unlike my other reviews, I have NOT watched the movie and I will NOT be watching this movie. Why? Simply because I think the movie will suck and be a waste of my time and the reviews and reactions seem to have proven to me so. Therefore, I will take my money and spend it on something worthwhile. I refuse to contribute to studios and companies making terrible movies and people watching and paying for them because they didn't want to watch them. That makes no sense, and it gives these people what they want: money.
2) This movie has been bothering me for a while because I think people have been misunderstanding this movie. Some people like it because it's "so bad it's good". Some people hate it because its bad. Some people like it because it was different and some people hate it because it was different. People can like and dislike whatever they want, but from the arguments I've heard, people have been missing the most important point when making any adaptation. So, I'm going to address that as well.
3) As I have not seen the movie, these criticisms will come from what I've seen and heard. Furthermore, I'm not here to tell you why this movie is good or bad, but rather how, and why it failed as an adaptation.I repeat, This Non-review is not about my thought's on Netflix's Death Note adaptation but understanding why this movie failed as an adaptation.
4) Whatever critiques I have will NOT be towards the director for I don't know how much say he actually had in this movie. Film is a collaborative effort and sometimes a director has the least control in a production. In other words, my criticisms will be addressed to Netflix as a stand in for the director, producers, the studio executives, screenwriters, etc.
5) Seeing how I'm going to be talking about how the story was adapted, I'll be referencing many details about the Story in the anime (aka, SPOILERS).


Let's start from the beginning: What is Death Note?

Very long story short, Death Note is a manga series written by Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata that ran from 2003 to 2006 (Spanning 12 volumes). It was adapted into an anime series in 2006 and finished airing on June 2007. The Story is about a high school student, Light Yagami, who stumbles across the Death Note: a notebook capable of killing anyone as long as you have a name and a face. As Light begins to kill a bunch of criminals (under his alias Kira), a police task force is formed to capture him lead by world famous detective L.

What is Death Note about?

Some people might be wondering already if I forgot to mention the shinigami (or Gods of Death) in my brief synopsis and to answer that: No, I haven't. I deliberately left them out to make a very clear point about Death Note. Doesn't matter how you interpret the story, Death Note is about HUMAN AFFAIRS.

The Wisecrack channel on YouTube made an interesting video on the Philosophy of Death Note and described the anime as a Socratic Dialogue. This is a very accurate description of the series because Death Note asked some questions about Justice, Morality, Tyranny, and Society, but never gave us an answer. We are tasked to ask ourselves these questions, discuss them, and maybe come up with answers. The story was carefully constructed to be a tool for discussion and the "Gods" serve one of the main starting points of this philosophical discussion: They don't care about our ideals. Its all meaningless to them. Having Ryuk, Rem, and other shinigami partake in the action allow for the story happen but also show the detachment between Gods and Humans.

Let's take a look at character motivations: characters like Light, L, Chief Yagami, Misa, Near, Mello, and the police task force have their motivations rooted in some sort of "greater good" (Justice, Family, Civil Protection, Love, etc). Characters like Ryuk, Rem, Jealous, and Sidoh have their motivations rooted in boredom and self interest. Ryuk explicitly states throughout the entire series that he has no alliance to neither Kira nor L and the anime makes it very clear that when he helps Light is because of his own self interest (for example, when Ryuk located all the cameras in Light's house because Light convinced him that he could eat apples if he found a blind spot). Sidoh is especially important because he's whole introduction and character arc is that he wants his notebook back. Sidoh is such a pointless character that I had to look him up. Why bother writing someone like him into the story? Simple, to drive the point home that they are NOT interested in our "greater good".

What's my point here? Well, if you are writing a story about Justice, Good, and Evil, having an all powerful being sway the characters one way or the other takes away from the meaning of their actions. If I went to trial for murdering 7 children and proved that I was commanded by God or possessed by Satan to do so, then I'm not evil. I didn't do anything, in fact, I maybe wasn't even in control: it was God's will. Death Note, by removing all powerful beings from influencing our characters makes them responsible for their actions and makes them have to justify their philosophy.

Side Note: Leaving the obvious reference to Michael Angelo aside,
Notice that Light is not only chained
but also his wings are melting just as they did in the Myth of Icarus.
This reference is more than a simple reference
or homage. It is a metaphor for the characters and the story.
The higher Light goes, the more knowledge and power he obtains,
the greater will be his inevitable fall.

Before I move on to Netflix, let's talk some history. For those who don't know, Death Note is semi-based on a real life story. Shoko Asahara was the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Japan (formed in 1984). He believed himself to be a god and the world to be rotten. Asahara believed that in order to cleanse the world of evil, he needed to kill off criminals. He even called himself the "Killer Christ".
On March 20th, 1995, followers of the Aum Shinrikyo committed a terrorist attack in the Tokyo Subways using sarin Gas. Anyone who has read the manga or seen the anime will already see some similarities between Shoko Asahara and Death Note's Light Yagami. However what Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata wanted to tell with Death Note was a morality tale about evil born out of good intentions. I think I can safely say we all want to make the world a better place but where does this sentiment end and evil begins? Furthermore, if we are to rid the world of evil, what is good and what is evil? Tsugumi Ohba and Takeshi Obata felt this story was so important that they went out of their way to bathe Death Note in Western Theology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature (some even speculate that some characters mirror William Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar) so it could be read and understood by not just the Japanese audience, but also a western audience.


What does this has to do with Netflix's Death Note?

Well, everything. First, let's be clear on what an adaptation is supposed to be. It is taking a work or story and make it suitable for a different medium. This does not mean, of course, making a frame by frame copy of a work. This is not suitable because, in that case, why just not go enjoy the original work? Also because every medium of entertainment has its pros, cons, and limitations. While settings and descriptions can be simply shown instead of having to write down 6 pages to let your audience know what a room looks like, a book can be as long as it wants and cram as many details as the author likes. A film has a limited time frame and that time frame is (to most people) 3 hours at most. Therefore, when a book is turned into a film, changes MUST be made. However, when is it good to change something and when is it good to leave it intact? To put it simply: When it doesn't affect the core of the story and characters.

I enjoyed the Japanese Live Action movies of Death Note. I even thoroughly enjoyed the Musical (yes, there is a Broadway-style Death Note Musical). Most people would ask me how can I excuse these adaptations and not Netflix's interpretation? Because they get it. The Japanese Live Action movies from 2006 and the Musical made changes to the story to fit their medium. They added characters, removed characters, remove events, even change the endings to fit better the story in their respective medium. Where they all good changes? No, some were terrible and others laughable. However, after its all said and done, the story and its message are not affected in any way, shape, or form. The characters are still who they were in the original source material and their motivations are not changed. The opening number of the musical establishes the main question of the entire series: what is justice and is there such thing as justice? The freaking musical that I watched AS A JOKE had a better understanding of its source material than a 40 Million Dollar budget Feature Film.

Netflix,on the other hand, dumb down the source material for a wider audience. The screenwriters took this morality tale about two geniuses playing a game of cat and mouse claiming their actions to be in the name of Good and Justice and turned it into a Final Destination knock-off. What? Why!? Was the gore necessary? Film Theory made a pretty interesting estimate on how many people die in the anime and as you would expect, it is a lot. I bring this up because what MatPat does in this video is shed some light into Kira's actions throughout the anime in the form of how many people were killed by Kira and how many people might've been actually innocent. While the estimate he makes does make you contextualize the power of the Death Note if it were real, the point I want to make is the following: So many people die in the anime throughout Kira's reign but how much blood do we see?

This is the main problem with Netlix's Death Note movie. The story taking place in Seattle, the characters being American, Mia being a cheerleader and not a model, these changes make sense. Ryuk being the more traditional devil, Light being a complete idiot, Mia manipulating Light, these are the changes that bother me. Netflix not only tries to "make it appealing for a wider audience" (which on itself it's pretty insulting because there's some unflattering assumptions about their audience if this is what they came up with) but make changes that ultimately change the core of the story. Why change the essence of the characters? Why change the heart of the conflict? Why change the message? Really, a Prom in Death Note? My problem with this particular movie is all the unnecessary changes they made to a story that was fine on its own. To quote another YouTuber, The Dom, "If You're Going to tell your own story, THEN TELL YOUR OWN STORY". In fact, this whole issue could've been avoided if the writers had decided to change Light's name entirely, remove L from the story, used a different Shinigami that was more devious than Ryuk, and just set it in the same universe as the anime. Kira's story in the anime ends in 2012, setting the story in 2017 with new characters and a new Death Note as some sort of sequel/spin-off movie would've solved most of this film's problems. You could've told the story YOU wanted, with no need to consult the source material (assuming they even did look at the source material), and nobody would've compared it to the original. It would've been judged as its own thing that just so happens to be in the same universe as the original series.

Conclusion.

Joey The Anime Man tried defending this movie but not in a "its a good movie" kind of way. He makes it clear that it is terrible but enjoyable. Again, some people claim Netflix's Death Note is a movie that is "so bad it's good" like The Room, The Happening, and The Lady in the Water. To be fair, what I've seen online does seem pretty unintentionally funny and I've heard William Defoe's acting is pretty good. This is all well and good but I bring him up for a different reason. He makes a point that this movie had a $40 Million budget, which is too much money for this film to be a cash-grab (going as far as to call it a "Passion Project").

However, this is the type of mentality I want to prevent. A $40 Million budget for a cash-grab is not a lot of money. The Emoji Movie's budget was $50 Million. 50 Shades of Grey's budget was $40 Million. The budget for Foodfight! (which currently holds a score of 1.7 out of 10 in IMDb) was $65 Million. Studios will give a ton of money for a franchise that have already proven to be successful, specially now with the amount of online reviewers. Netflix's Death Note was a mediocre film and I wouldn't call it a "passion project" by ANY stretch, and we shouldn't have indulged it. Today, the less people want to watch a film or the worse a film is or appears to be, the better it performs. The Emoji Movie (which, again, had a budget if $50 Million and has a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes) grossed over $200 Million world wide, People who knew it was going to be bad still went and watched it to rant about how bad it was. In fact, this mentality and the surge of online content creators might benefit the movie if it IS bad. If the movie is bad, then more people will want to make Rants and Reviews on YouTube, giving the movie free publicity and making others wanting to watch the movie to ride the Trend Train. In the end, it's a lot easier to write and make fun of something that is bad rather than something that is good. People who don't make online content, will want to watch the movie just to see how bad it was. It's similar to Uwe Boll's Videogame movies: it took a property with an established fanbase to make a secure profit, and benefited from the movies being bad through legal loopholes.


This is the part that bums me out the most: in our "ironic enjoyment" philosophy, we accepted the mediocrity we were given instead of demanding for something better. Furthermore, no matter how much we complain, rant, or analyze how bad a product is, we still bought it. They made a profit.

The same reason why they are so many Transformers movies despite everyone agreeing unanimously after the second one came out how all of them are trash. By the time we fight back with reviews and critiques, they have already won. Their goal was to make a profit and with junk food entertainment they did. I didn't want to write a review for the Death Note movie because I didn't want to give this garbage anymore free publicity. I could pull out a complete philosophical, psychological, and literary analysis of the manga and the anime, compare it to the adaptation, give it an accurate review on what it did wrong and right and why, and give it a review both as a stand alone film and as an adaptation (both from a production stand point and from a narrative stand point). As I said before, however, it would've change nothing and only benefited the film. The best thing I could've done as a reviewer, movie goer, and an aspiring filmmaker was to do nothing and let the film die. This Non-review was not about my thought's on Netflix's Death Note adaptation, it was about understanding why this movie failed as an adaptation, why this movie is offensive to its source material.