Good Hair
Directed by: Jeff Stilson
Starring: Chris Rock, Nia Long, Ice-T, Al Sharpton, Maya Angelou, Eve, Tracie Thoms

I have more rap albums than I have black friends on Facebook, and I don’t have that many rap albums. There is and has always been a lot of black culture that I can only understand so much, but I never really thought about hair’s role. It seems so simple – you grow it, you dye it, you straighten it, you comb it – hair just happens, and I had never bothered to think about dreadlocks or cornrows or even afros beyond the stylistic choice. With this in mind, I was confused about who Good Hair is targeted to. Is it an expose of controversial issues to spur change within the black community, or is it just opening the door into a world someone like me knows nothing about?

The premise of this documentary involves Chris Rock investigating a question from his daughter: “Why don’t I have good (read: Farrah Fawcett-ish, flowing, not nappy) hair?”. This leads him on a Michael Moore-ish journey through the $9 billion black hair industry, from relaxers to weaves to the doc’s stability device: a ridiculous hair expo stage event in Atlanta that puts pageantry and pomp over pure skill. A better reference than Moore may be Chris Bell’s 2008 steroid culture documentary Bigger Stronger Faster*, where the issues of vanity are also relevant beyond its specific subjects. While Stilson’s film doesn’t have (or need) the same personal punch, the light-hearted yet serious tone and editing style will seem familiar. Chris Rock as the catalyst for discovery makes for a very entertaining and amusing watch. Rock’s quips and reactions serve as a gateway for pasty white Canadians like me who without a guide may have no idea what the fuck they’re watching, and could not fathom why people would subject themselves to the activities involved in achieving “good hair”.

There is first an examination of “relaxers”, which turns nappy hair into straight, silky, luxurious locks. It is shocking to watch how the chemicals in these products can damage and burn, aptly demonstrated by the visual of an aluminum can being stripped by a relaxer chemical to the point where it is completely clear. A longer segment about weaves takes Rock to India, investigating the process in which young Indian girls shave their heads ritualistically and send their mops back overseas to retail for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. These segments also explore and explain how spending so much on ones coiffure can lead to distance in a relationship – the ladies aren’t going to let their fellas mess up their thousand dollar ‘do. It also obviously causes major fears of rain and swimming.

An examination of the industry behind both shows how much money black people, especially women, are shelling out to businesses that are ironically mostly not black owned. In total, these scenes raise questions of whether or not they should or even want to be more involved in serving their own community through such methods. While one might look down on some of these people for shelling out large percentages of their paycheck every month on goop and sorta-wigs, watching the sole white hairdresser of the extravagant hair show go in for Botox treatment certainly makes it clear that vanity knows no boundaries of race or ridiculousness, and that in the end a lot of this may be uniquely psychological rather than strictly cultural.

This especially becomes clear through the numerous talking head bits that pepper throughout the film from noted entertainers and figures from Ice-T to Maya Angelou, who talk of their first and/or continuing tales of weaves and relaxers. Al Sharpton for example tells about James Brown getting him to relax his hair to be more politically affable, and the payoff photograph is amusing and makes his point. A group of young girls talk about relaxing their hair not just for their own vanity, but because of the perceptions they would receive in their office had they grown their hair out naturally. You can’t help but feel bad for the one girl of the group with a cute short afro as she listens to her friends explain yet another body issue she will have to contend with.

It is unfortunate that Rock and Stilson aren’t able to push more of their celebrity friends to get on the couch and similarly open up. Most of the talking head stories simply revolve around how, and not so much WHY they do this to their heads. When Rock wants to talk about any media manipulation leading these people to believe they don’t have good hair, it doesn’t resonate as well as it could. The case is clearly made that a number of these things are controversial if not clearly fucked up, but for the few fingers Rock points outside the black community, he extends others pointing back within. I’m not sure if there was an activist element intended when they first set out on this venture, but on the psychological level there was much left to be explored.

Despite near universal critical acclaim, on IMDB and Flixster I’ve seen a lot more pushback against the film. I’ve seen some complaints from people mad at Rock taking pokes at weaves and relaxers at all, and others who believe Rock didn’t take enough of a stand. I see claims that Stilson and Rock needed to spend time with black women who DO have naturally straight hair, and should show numerous people with “bad hair” of other races. I believe those complaints are misguided and could have turned the whole thing into an unfocused mess, instead of what it is – a very funny picture that is insightful, interesting and endlessly entertaining, but missing a definitive answer to its main question. — Goon

I have to admit, I have a bias with this film. I detest Wal-Mart and haven’t shopped there for over a year. Pretty much any reason why is contained within this incredibly biased documentary, which comes to us from the director of other politically motivated documentaries such as “Outfoxed” and “Uncovered”. I worked at Wal-Mart a few years ago, and I still think it was the most soul-crushing, unfair, creepy, cult-ish workplace I’ve ever been in, and I’ve worked for some pretty crazy people and places.

In it’s attempt to persuade you, this essay throws everything at you including the kitchen sink. From the tales of corporate handouts, unfair business practices, what it does to the economies of small towns, to the sweatshops they operate in China, Greenwald has gone to great lengths to make his case, and I have to say for the most part he does a good job. Even though it seems the filmmakers are pretty far left of the spectrum, the film allows many of the subjects to make it clear they are very pro-capitalism, just against those who cheat and take advantage of every loophole, and bully everyone else even at the expense of a poor public perception.

The biggest strength of the film is that it has a surprisingly clear, very smooth narrative, and doesn’t rely on talking heads to make his case. The film follows personal stories of shops in small towns, exploring what happens before and after a Wal-Mart comes to town, when workers try to start a union, and contains many interviews with store managers who explain in support of other Wal-Mart workers how the many allegations against Wal-Mart are not only true, but systemic. I can honestly say it’s informative, and not so much the jingoistic socialist love-in I expected it to be.

That isn’t to say it isn’t without its faults. It is populist to a fault, drives many points into the ground, and obviously panders to Republicans at many places to try and broaden the potential viewing audience. That’s not a bad idea, especially when so many of Wal-Mart’s victims are in the small conservative towns, but when you package the DVD with an insert advertising a bunch of Bush-bashing DVDs, and in your special features show your office with the big framed Che Guevara poster in the background, you’re opening yourself up to making those same people think you’re trying to trick them. The film also seems to put each allegation on equal footing as the rest, as if an environmental fine in North Carolina is just as bad as enslaving Chinese workers and undergoing a massive and expensive campaign to spy on their own employees. Still, despite its faults, if you generally agree with the films ideas, you might want to pick it up and share it with others.

The DVD contains a condensed version of the film, a short ‘making of’, some awful Wal-Mart parody commercials (a few of them featuring James Cromwell), and an audio commentary. I kind of enjoyed the audio commentary. It’s moderately interesting in the sense that Greenwald talks up his somewhat clichéd techniques. He has one of those very listenable, deliberate, somewhat gravely voices – reminds me of Marvel’s Stan Lee. It almost didn’t matter to me what he was talking about. Finally are a few shorts of stories in Britain, and of course the famed story of the Wal-Mart in Quebec which was shut down in retaliation for successfully starting a union. – Goon

When the acclaimed documentary “Murderball” came out, I didn’t really care to see it. To me, a sports movie about quadriplegics wasn’t any more appealing to me than a regular sports movie. Eventually I found out that the movie was about a lot more than that, about the daily lives and struggles these men face, their personal stories of how they came to find Murderball, the contact sport where quads in souped up wheelchairs play a modified version of rugby. I didn’t really feel I needed a movie to tell me that their lives are difficult, that their cases are individual, that the personalities of these people are just as varied as everyone else…

While I still don’t feel I really needed to see this movie to understand the empowerment these athletes have acheived, it is indeed a well made, artfully shot movie with a good soundtrack and some interesting stories. I can’t say anything to pick it apart. Thankfully, it is never really a sob story (which may not tell the full tale of what its like to be quadriplegic, but that’s not the film’s intent). I expected there to be some underlying message about prejudice, but it’s not really preachy either. It’s simply a story about a rivalry between two teams coupled with stories of how they live. The story focuses mainly on three people. Mark Zupan, a charismatic guy with a big goatee (looks like Jason Newsted of Metallica) who is essentially the big star of the sport, Joe Soares, former team US star, now coach of Team Canada and a ‘traitor’, and a man who only recently became disabled who is being introduced to Murderball…. Of the three I enjoyed the moments with the Team Canada coach the best. At times he seemed to be painted like a villain, but its because he seemed the most passionate about what he does, even to the point of being a dick about it, that carrying his story into the personal life of his family was the most interesting to me.

This is when I watched the special features. This is one of the best, most packed single disc DVDs to come along in a long time. As documentary DVDs go, only Capturing the Friedmans maybe, maybe…. surpasses it in the sense of supplemental features actually HELPING the film. In a 40 minute interview with Larry King, we get to know the Team USA players more, get a bit more background on where they are now and some of the more boring details that are important to know but didn’t get into the film, like about the teams they play for during the year, their views on stem cell research, and more. They each seem less like the dicks they can come across as at times in the heat of competition, especially Zupan. Two feature length commentaries are available, one with the filmmakers and one with the players of Team USA. There’s lots of dead air in these tracks, but when they’re on, they’re interesting and lively. “Murderball: Behind the Game” runs 20 minutes and filters the footage down to just talking heads interviews about the game itself. And finally, an episode of Jackass that was made to tie in with the film, which I didn’t really care for (man I hate Steve-O) but I’m sure many will enjoy. Also, some deleted and extended scenes.

I highly recommend this movie as a rental as least, I wasn’t nearly as blown away with it as some of the other members of Spacejunk, but it’s definitely a very good film, and the DVD is a fantastic package – Goon

The Aristocrats is a documentary about a dirty joke with the same beginning and the same end. A family of performers visit a talent agent, say: “We’ve got an amazing act for you”. They perform the most disgusting things you can imagine. The talent agent says: “That’s a hell of an act. What do you call it?” The answer: The Aristocrats.

It’s not a funny joke at all, but as Penn Jillette says, “It’s the singer, not the song”. The Aristocrats is 100 comedians’ take on this old joke that for years was just an insider thing amongst comedians. Some of them tell their own version, others just talk to the camera about why it’s funny or not funny to them. Before seeing this film I assumed it would be amusing, yet for various reasons, be a faulty film. I think my instincts turned out to be correct.

“The Aristocrats” will probably generate more laughs than 90% of the junk put out this year, but at the same time, very few of these comedians are ever funny in the film, especially when telling their version of the joke. They rely on the assumption that shit, piss and incest are inherently funny, and don’t add anything new to it to make their version stand out from the pack. At the same time, there are a few that can work that same base material and get by on performance alone, such as Gilbert Gottfried’s lauded performance of the joke at a Hugh Hefner roast shortly after 9/11. Only a handful were dementedly creative enough to get me laughing – Bill Maher, Bob Saget, Andy Dick and South Park’s Trey Parker and Matt Stone cross the line so far it was no wonder some people walked out of the movie.

The big problem though, is almost every time someone is making the joke work, they cut away to someone else who is doing a terrible job at the joke, or unnecessarily explaining for the millionth time what the joke is about as if we didn’t get it yet (such as Paul Reiser, who I wanted to kill by the end of this film.) This movie is just as much Penn Jillette’s baby as it is director Paul Provenza’s, and I guess he just couldn?t stand to cut all these friends/colleagues out, even if their pieces weren’t working. (By far, Eddie Izzard has the most useless scene.) Because of this ADD editing, “The Aristocrats” gets tedious very quickly, and it took something really bizarre or creative to get me interested again.

There were some of those moments. A few times comedians would tell stories about each other that were interesting, and several comedians were wise enough to turn the joke on its head, or do it through someone else’s voice. A highlight is Kevin Pollak’s impression of Christopher Walken doing the joke, another is Martin Mull and Robin Williams’ reversal of the joke. Mario Cantone, dreaded hack comedian who regularly inhabits TV’s “the View”, manages to shine brighter in the film than noted stars such as Drew Carey, Chris Rock or Emo Philips. Andy Richter and Doug Stanhope tell the joke to their infant children.

So basically, what we have is a 90 minute documentary that should have been maybe even half its length, with around half of its stars cut. The only justification for this as a feature length would be as a gift from Jillette to his buddies. There’s a mime version of “The Aristocrats” that itself makes this a worthy DVD rental, but nothing here is amazing enough to justify going out of your way to one of the few theaters showing it.

Unless of course, the word “fuck” alone sends you into waves of laughter. — Goon

I first saw “Boondock Saints” on video in 2001. I liked it, and still kind of do. I knew right away though that it was a flawed Tarantino ripoff, but the performances are quite funny, there’s many memorable good moments and action sequences, and its generally fun. It tries to stir up some discussion about vigilantism, and it fails at that, however as an indie film I thought it was certainly above average. I believed the cult status it has accumulated since then was earned. But I had no idea of the story behind the director, Troy Duffy and his “Brood Syndicate”, and now that I do, I’ll probably never be able to watch Boondock Saints favorably again.

“Overnight” only recently hit DVD within the last month. It is a simple tale of the rise and fall of an overnight Hollywood success. Troy Duffy was a 26 year old bartender who through the gift of gab, and whose “Saints” script landed him a sweetheart deal with Miramax and the love of Harvey Weinstein. Despite having no film experience (not even film school), he was assigned the job of director. At the same time he has aspirations of success in the music business with his band, The Brood, and he brings the band aboard to become a part of the filmmaking process. Taking advantage of the buzz around him, troy has the band signed to a recording contract, without even having been seen. It�s a complete rags to riches story, and Troy immediately becomes a poster child for the American Dream.

The co-managers of the band, Tony Montana (yes, that�s his real name) and Mark Brian Smith are recording all this for a documentary. They’re already completely within Troy’s inner circle and capture every private moment, and are on screen a good deal of the time. They quickly come to see Troy emerge as a paper tiger, a pompous, arrogant man who is his own worst enemy. Despite submitting themselves to increasing levels of abuse, they decide to stay focused on sticking it out with Troy and the band, probably anticipating Troy’s fall from grace the second his big money deal was struck.

They don’t have to wait very long. Within the first half hour of the film, Troy is essentially ruined in Tinseltown. His big mouth and his bullying nature are his greatest strength and his largest weakness. He’s never happy. He’s always yelling, pointing fingers, talking behind others’ backs, drinking his blues away night after night (and assuming he can charm anyone just by drinking with them), taking harsh potshots at celebrities, and basically failing to get any work done. After a series of intense arguments on the phone, we eventually find out that someone at Miramax has put the movie on turnaround. He ends up with a producer with less than half the budget he could have had, and is stuck with lower tier actors (Patrick Swayze even passed on it, and sorry Billy Connelly, I love you, but if Troy wasn�t an asshole, you wouldnever had the part). When Troy visits a film schoolfor a talk, he verbally assaults several students because they want to know why he can’t even be proud of what he’s created. Because of all the bridges he has burned, he can’t get the movie bought at Cannes by any studio, and the movie ends up in only 5 theaters nationwide, and the Brood doesn’t even end up with a cut of the home video profits. Knowing all this, its less of a surprise to me now why he’s working on a sequel. Its his last shot at getting any money out of the Saints.

More interesting to me personally was the story of his band, which consists of his brother Taylor (whom a member of the Doobie Brothers calls “a genius”) and some friends from Colorado. We never get to hear any of their music, but they have an album still available as far as I know under the name “The Boondock Saints”(a girl band called “The Brood” wouldn�t allow use of the name). Troy is downright abusive and evil to these people who are supposed to be his friends, hisbrothers. In one interview he tells of how the bandwouldn�t amount to anything if it weren’t for him. It’s actually very true, but that he’d go on the record the way he does against his friends isabsolutely cruel. In one tense moment when the bandcomes into some money, he goes off on the band managers (the directors) about how they won’t beseeing any dough. The film’s climax is a bandmeeting, an amazing moment where Taylor breaks down and cries, unable to criticize his brothers behavior. Troy however, finds it quite easy to break hisbrother’s heart. The bands debut album ultimatelyonly sells around 700 copies, they are quickly dropped from the label and break up. Back to the day jobs for everyone.

Troy never shows any sensitivity to anyone on film, though the directors have said that he could have his moments off camera from time to time. I think most people have met someone like Troy, who act tough and think they can talk themselves out of anything, and that everything will go their way because they will itso and assume they are in control. When I saw him ina Metallica shirt it clicked in me how much he’s likeLars Ulrich, but much worse. The movie’s success isentirely Duffy’s doing. How could he not realize how lucky he is? I love documentaries where there’s a character you are either frustrated with or hate so much you keep watching waiting to see his inevitable failure. “Overnight” obliges and schadenfreude abounds. You could argue this is a hatchet job revenge movie, however I don’t think there’s any way to take Troy Duffy’s actions out of context. In fact, Smith and Montana claim they left out Troy’s worst moments where he is incredibly racist, sexist and homophobic.

The DVD extras are slight. I really feel a commentary track for this one was warranted to move this from ’solid rental’ to ‘must purchase’, but we do get a few deleted scenes, including one where the band hit on an actress working in a diner. There is an interview with the directors on an entertainment news program hosted by Barry Nolan, and some trailers for “Overnight” and a couple other documentaries.

I highly recommend “Overnight”, but not as a ‘making of’ movie. Anyone intending to know how Boondock Saints was made will be disappointed. Theres only 2 or 3 scenes on the movie set, and I’m glad. Duffy’s story is way more behave, regardless of what career path you take. — Goon

The Flaming Lips have been around for over 20 years now, but have really only come to be known in the last 10 years starting with their surprise hit “She Don’tUse Jelly”.

I was too young at the time to see the Lips as anything more than a novelty act, and it wasn’t until the critical brouhaha surrounding 1999’s “The Soft Bulletin” that I bothered giving them a chance. Since then they’ve become one of my favorite bands, and their upcoming album is one of the years most anticipated releases.

So it was with great excitement and fascination I sat through the newly released to DVD documentary “The Fearless Freaks” by Oklahoman fan and band friendBradley Beesley. A compilation of vintage homevideos (Michael Ivins punk hair = wow), live performances, and interviews with both current and former members, “Freaks” is not really a definitive”VH1 Behind The Music” – esque history. Nor does it focuson the band at one important point in their career a la Wilco’s “I am Trying to Break Your Heart” film. Instead it is basically a character study of the band, and that includes the countless other members who have come and gone spanning 3 decades.

Only the early portions of the film submit to any sort of narrative, as we are led through the members’ childhood and how the band came to be, into the early years where Waynes jock brother fronted the group. From there we move right into a number of stories and vignettes, such as frontman Wayne Coyne stopping at his old place of work and having some Vietnamesechildren re-enact a robbery. Coyne also takes thecamera around as he works on his independent film “Christmas on Mars”, a very “American Movie” type set of segments which also involve former Blues Clues host/Drozd disciple Steve Burns and Adam Goldberg. As charismatic and watchable Coyne is, and surprising as it is that he says he hasn’t done drugs in over 20 years, the most amazing chapters though belong to the story of Stephen Drozd.

As Butthole Surfers leader Gibby Haynes attests, Stephen is Coyne’s secret weapon. The film is revelatory in this respect. Coming from a family life where several direct family members died tragically, multi-instrumentalist Drozd is shown to be the bands true marvel, and despite Coynes vision, it becomes clear that the Lips really took off because Drozd hadjoined the group.

A surprise to me was the story of Drozd’s massive heroin addiction and recovery. Shot in stark black and white is a long scene where Drozd is preparing to shoot up, speaking incredibly matter of factly of his addiction and how it is hurting him. He also speaks honestly of heroin’s draw and why he’d been unable to kick it.

There will be those who complain of some important things in the bands history not being covered, specifically how Drozd nearly lost his arm due to a Spiderbite in the second half of the 90s, but theres enough in this doc for any Lips fan not to worry so much about what isn’t. As essential viewing as this is for any Lips fan though, it probably wont appeal very much to people who already aren’t in the cult. Unlike the Metallica doc of last year, which had a narrative, more tension, comedy and frankly, better filmmakers.

A second disc of special features includes half an hour of deleted scenes and outtakes, including another take of Coyne telling the robbery story and a number of scenes detailing the making of the “Clouds Taste Metallic” album. The commentary track on disc one is quite entertaining and moved along mostly by Coyne, who tells an even better robbery story than the one in the movie. — Goon

I was never a huge Metallica fan. Despite being a skid throughout most of the 90s, I always found Metallica to be hit-and-miss, a band I couldn�t listen to a full album of, who had cheesy lyrics and boring drumming. To this day I still don�t think their old era any better to their newer stuff. Theres things that are OK, theres things that are good, things that are crap. Whatever. However I am one of those people that went apeshit trashing the band during their famed anti-Napster crusade just a few years back. If the band have any brains at all, they at least secretly regret what they did and know it didn’t make a difference, that it just turned their own fans against them and cost them thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars.

So of course when I heard that there was a Metallica documentary that supposedly showcased the band’s ridiculousness, I was there. Spinal Tap is my favorite movie of all time and a real life equivalent has been a long time coming. In that sense, “Metallica: Some Kind of Monster” satisfies. And it gives you a whole lot more.

This documentary, directed by Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky of “Brother’s Keeper” and “Paradise Lost” fame, works on many levels and should appeal to a broad audience. Like many great documentaries, it is full of comedy, drama, tragedy, and “wtf?” moments that will surely generate discussion once the movie is over. Its 2001 and Metallica have entered the studio to record their first album of entirely original material in several years. They have what must have seemed a good idea, to show up with no ideas beforehand, no song titles, no riffs, nothing, just jam together in the studio and collaborate in a way they had never done before. At the same time, they are dealing with the quitting of their bass player Jason Newsted, as well as other tension in the band, by hiring a 40,000 dollar a month shrink to deal with their problems.

It is amazing that Metallica, forever trying to be a tough guy band, allowed this footage to be taken, let alone released. Each member exposes several negative traits about themselves, as well as probably does irreparable damange to the image of the band by their words and actions. Singer James Hetfield is clueless to how he’s changed over ten years from regular guy party animal to alcoholic father who takes his kids to ballet practice. As well he can be an asshole at times who can’t resolve problems, often dramatically slamming doors to show off his disdain for the situations he’s in. After going away for rehab for a large portion of the film, he becomes increasingly paranoid about things being done behind his back. Guitarist Kirk Hammett, not that this is new, comes across quite frankly as a closeted homosexual. With this sort of stereotypically gay demeanor and the fact that he’s kind of stupid, he comes away with the best lines in the film. Every word he got in generated laughs. Producer Bob Rock is in the movie as much as the rest of the band, and might as well have been played by Michael McKean of Spinal Tap as he looks, talks and acts the same. Lars Ulrich, what can I say? He’s the ultimate movie villain. A total bitch, self centered, selfish, arrogant. The way the public knows him from the Napster trials is the way he is, ALL THE TIME. There are no redeemable qualities with this man. He’s not even much of a drummer. But he makes for a great movie character, and without Lars, the movie wouldn’t be nearly as fascinating.

The documentary has many surprises and cameos. Lars Ulrich’s father is way more hardcore than he is. Dave Mustaine of Megadeth shows up for some bizarre reason to explain how tortured he is by fans who bring up Metallica instead of his own band. Band members randomly speak in psychobabble relating to their psychiatry and their feelings. Lars discusses the nature of art and then sells some of his own.

For some reason, despite how ridiculous the band come across as, the documentary is certainly no hatchet job. Everything seems to be in proper context with nothing coming across as questionable. The band despite their faults are at most other times likeable and honest, and aware of where the band stands in the current state of music. When it comes to their work they aren�t exactly deluded or claiming to be better than they are. The generic “making of an album” moments that take up a large chunk of the film as well are equally interesting and better than any other ‘making of an album’ piece I’ve seen before.

At 2 and a half hours, for me it flew right by, though I see not everyone exactly agrees. I thought it was tight and didn�t waste any of its minutes. In its investigation of the band, Some Kind of Monster is a more successful psychological analysis of the band than the one they were paying the shrink for. Best documentary of the year to date, and one of the years best films, period. — Goon