Along came the Super Duper reviews

[A_MichaelUK]

> I'll be surprised if the film doesn't kick off similar lengthy debate to that instigated by the Old School Box.

That might depend on what people's expectations are. People will hopefully wait until they've seen it before commenting on it.

[pitkin88]

> I'll be surprised if the film doesn't kick off similar lengthy debate to that instigated by the Old School Box.

That might depend on what people's expectations are. People will hopefully wait until they've seen it before commenting on it.

I agree.

[steven_crayn]

much better review here http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/317333

[steven_crayn]

another one http://www.aroundosceola.com/?p=8006

[darkmenace]

Super Duper is playing in Cleveland, Ohio on Wednesday the 30th. This reviewer really liked it:

http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.s ... portr.html

[A_MichaelUK]

>This reviewer really liked it:

Those who have seen the documentary will know the review contains three big inaccuracies.

[darkmenace]

>Those who have seen the documentary will know the review contains three big inaccuracies.

That's interesting. Look forward to seeing the movie to see what they are.

[concolz]

Here's another one: http://www.theupcoming.co.uk/super-duper/

One thing that made me laugh is the assertion that beyond the big hit singles 'the Cooper discography isn't exactly oozing with memorable songs'. That's been a theme in quite a few of the critics' reviews, and I can only conclude that - as with AC's exclusion from those music mag 'best of' lists - it's often a case of 'received wisdom'. I seriously doubt that many of the reviewers have actually ever listened to LITD/Killer/SO/BDB/WTMN/FTI etc. so simply reiterate some 'passed down the generations' perceptions.

[concolz]

It gets three stars in the latest edition of Mojo music magazine. The reviewer writes that it's 'a playful study' but 'Banger don't enjoy quite the level of access that made the films about Rush and Iron Maiden so special.' There's praise for the Montreal Uni show that's included with the extras.

[A_MichaelUK]

>but 'Banger don't enjoy quite the level of access that made the films about Rush and Iron Maiden so special.'

That makes no sense.

[darkmenace]

Don't know if this was posted yet, a mainly negative review from IndieWire:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/ ... n-20140423

The reviewer repeats the standard mantra that Alice didn't care about anything except making money and being famous, that he had no artistic interest in what he was doing. The reviewer also says the music didn't matter to Alice or the band.

I have often thought these are over generalizations. Alice can only blame himself for the first, for decades he has downplayed the artistic or creative significance of his own shows. As for the second, I'm not sure why this perception exists and I think the band and Bob Ezrin would take great exception to it. There was a lot of care put into the music by the band.

[steven_crayn]

another one http://www.dailybulletin.com/arts-and-e ... mplex-life

[steven_crayn]

Toronto Star http://m.thestar.com/#!/entertainment/h ... 79e397af60

[steven_crayn]

http://www.centredaily.com/2014/04/25/4 ... p=/99/188/

[concolz]

The reviewer repeats the standard mantra that Alice didn't care about anything except making money and being famous, that he had no artistic interest in what he was doing. The reviewer also says the music didn't matter to Alice or the band.

Very few music critics ever liked Alice Cooper, even back in the group's heyday.

Why? Well, IMO, because on the one hand AC didn't tap into the artsy-fartsy zeitgeist like Bowie or Roxy Music, nor wallow in the druggy gutter like Iggy and Lou - stuff that the critics were always enthralled by. That to them was 'real' and 'worthy', whereas AC's death and resurrection Busby Berkeleyisms were 'fake' and 'unworthy'. Of course the critics' darlings were just as interested in fame and money - they weren't doing it for charity! - but that was all glossed over in the name of street cred. That AC were an astonishingly original, stonkingly great rock band who turned out four utterly superb albums meant little to the 'tastemakers'. Even worse, AC weren't prone to po-faced solemnity, and it all counted against them in the end.

Music mags and their writers had much more clout and influence back then. Their views rippled out into the mainstream media and from that a 'received view' took hold which has been passed down over the decades. It ain't gonna change unfortunately.

[concolz]

This long review sums up the movie as 'flawed but fascinating'.

http://www.mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/04/super-duper/

The reviewer has some strong words of support for ACG and AC, plus a royal slagging off for Bowie:

"The documentary aims to place Alice in his rightful context as an original who has never been given full credit for his huge influence on much of what has followed."

"The band were delivering theatrical spectacle, dadaist imagery and gender-bending back when eternal critical darling David Bowie was still trying to be Bob Dylan, though succeeding in only being a third rate Donovan" (I think the last sentiment might be over-egging the pudding somewhat!) He pointedly mentions DB attending that early ACG show as well.

There's also some harsh words for Michael Bruce's omission:

"as a fan it's impossible to see the lack of even a passing mention to Bruce as anything other than petty, cruel and vindictive." (As I haven't seen the movie yet I don't know whether his 'no passing mention' is strictly accurate.)

[mr.barlow]

The reviewer repeats the standard mantra that Alice didn't care about anything except making money and being famous, that he had no artistic interest in what he was doing. The reviewer also says the music didn't matter to Alice or the band.

Very few music critics ever liked Alice Cooper, even back in the group's heyday.

Why? Well, IMO, because on the one hand AC didn't tap into the artsy-fartsy zeitgeist like Bowie or Roxy Music, nor wallow in the druggy gutter like Iggy and Lou - stuff that the critics were always enthralled by. That to them was 'real' and 'worthy', whereas AC's death and resurrection Busby Berkeleyisms were 'fake' and 'unworthy'. Of course the critics' darlings were just as interested in fame and money - they weren't doing it for charity! - but that was all glossed over in the name of street cred. That AC were an astonishingly original, stonkingly great rock band who turned out four utterly superb albums meant little to the 'tastemakers'. Even worse, AC weren't prone to po-faced solemnity, and it all counted against them in the end.

Music mags and their writers had much more clout and influence back then. Their views rippled out into the mainstream media and from that a 'received view' took hold which has been passed down over the decades. It ain't gonna change unfortunately.

A great post--you summed it up perfectly.

[mr.barlow]

The reviewer repeats the standard mantra that Alice didn't care about anything except making money and being famous, that he had no artistic interest in what he was doing. The reviewer also says the music didn't matter to Alice or the band.

Very few music critics ever liked Alice Cooper, even back in the group's heyday.

Why? Well, IMO, because on the one hand AC didn't tap into the artsy-fartsy zeitgeist like Bowie or Roxy Music, nor wallow in the druggy gutter like Iggy and Lou - stuff that the critics were always enthralled by. That to them was 'real' and 'worthy', whereas AC's death and resurrection Busby Berkeleyisms were 'fake' and 'unworthy'. Of course the critics' darlings were just as interested in fame and money - they weren't doing it for charity! - but that was all glossed over in the name of street cred. That AC were an astonishingly original, stonkingly great rock band who turned out four utterly superb albums meant little to the 'tastemakers'. Even worse, AC weren't prone to po-faced solemnity, and it all counted against them in the end.

Music mags and their writers had much more clout and influence back then. Their views rippled out into the mainstream media and from that a 'received view' took hold which has been passed down over the decades. It ain't gonna change unfortunately.

If you ever hear any musician, artist, etc say they're not in it for the money you know that are full of it. They all get into it to share their art and talent and to make money and gain fame. I always say that any musician who becomes super famous and rich and blathers on about how they're "not in it for the money" are free to give away all of their wealth at any given time. How many have done that? Bowie is a near billionaire as is Paul McCartney. They are ALL in it for the money. That's what I always loved about Alice--he is a proud American capitalist who is not afraid to get rich by working hard and using his talents. Money and wealth are not bad things. I admire Alice as much for his business sense as his musical talents. It is just astounding that Alice and Shep have been able to keep this character alive and thriving for nearly 50 years--now that's some great business sense!

[Si]

(As I haven't seen the movie yet I don't know whether his 'no passing mention' is strictly accurate.)

It is. There is no mention of his name in the movie at all (although of course he's in the photos/footage). The only acknowledgement is in the end credits under "thanks to"

[James1981]

Noticed you can now pre order the deluxe edition off amazon. Just got mines. Remember if you are doing this to use the link from this site