Reviews

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:19201:]]

Defying the Laws of Physics

[Continuing Our 2015 Academy Award Roundup]

A Film Review of The Theory of Everything

Yet another period piece about a British super genius is up for a series of Academy Awards including best picture this year.  The Theory of Everything is an indie biopic (with Hollywood level production value) that tells the tale of Stephen Hawking based on the first hand written accounts of his wife, Jane.  Hawking is globally known for his contributions in the field of physics, but perhaps more so for the physical status that his motor neuron disease has restricted him to.  The man in the chair with the robotic voice has been a concept that has been the subject of pop cultural mockery as well as productive social and scientific discussion.  Yet, his journey from seemingly healthy Cambridge student to the man he would become has never absorbed into the mainstream.  This film does an excellent job at giving the audience an abridged, but emotionally poignant vision of his young adult life amidst the framework of a love story with his wife to be. 

Presenting the film in this manner allows director James Marsh to make the story more accessible to a wider audience not necessarily interested in scientific jargon and intellectual rhetoric.  Yes, Hawking is a scientific genius, but the man’s impact on the world is more than just numbers and theories.  Thus, we see Hawking in love, with his family and struggling to balance it all with his research and his disease.  It does much to humanize the often seen as “larger than life” Hawking because more people can identify with family struggles and illness than the thermodynamics of singularities.  What follows is an endearing tale of determination as every new chapter in Hawking’s life is sideswiped by another segment of his body breaking down and the effort made to overcome it.  What makes this film more artistic than a History Channel documentary is the fact that cinematographer Benoit Delhomme decorates his frames with dynamic angles and lighting to artificially infuse some magic behind the mystery of Hawking’s life.  The filmmakers are attempting to link the almost otherworldly sight of Hawking’s mind with the imagination of the viewer not necessarily to demonstrate how alpha humans’ take on the world is innately superior, but that different perspectives can be inspired from the most unlikely of circumstances.  Being able to recognize these brief moments in time and seizing them represents some of life’s most magical instances of serendipity. 

Unlike fellow best picture nominee The Imitation Game, this film is not being mired with inauthentic accounts or some other form of historical heresy.  Naturally, it helps any biopic if the bullet points of history are altered as seldom as possible, but creative license is inevitable as the adaptation is only undertaken for its potential for profit.  This film had the blessing and approval of the Hawking family, and Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones in particular were given personal, first hand confidence by Stephen Hawking and Jane Wilde respectively for their efforts made in this endeavor.  Not every biographical adaptation has the luxury of having this level of contact (if at all) with the original subjects, but this is the kind of credibility that is all but infallible.  Granted, even this film is not perfect regarding the presentation of every fact and detail, but the spirit of authenticity is maintained throughout.

As with almost every other nominee for best picture this year, there is a noteworthy absence of action and this always has the potential of losing an audience regardless of the content, context, genre or scope of any film production.  By “action,” I don’t necessarily mean explosions, combat, gunplay or violence in some form.  Movement within the frame and/or movement of the frame can do much to keep our eyes stimulated and our minds more focused on the narrative as a result.  A movie completely devoid of movement may be an experimental videographer’s wet dream, but isn’t a particularly satisfying or effective “moving picture.”  Action in The Theory of Everything literally starts off at the races, but is in a constant state of decay from the film’s very first minutes until the final credits roll.  Obviously, the content of this film parallels this imagery and must therefore disallow any semblance of acrobatic choreography for its characters within the frame.  Perhaps the frame itself could have been moved a bit more with tracking shots, pans and tilts as some form of compensation?  There’s a difference between dramas and “dialogue-driven” dramas and the visual presence of action is that difference.

Besides Patricia Arquette’s performance in Boyhood, Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Jane Wilde (Hawking’s first wife) is another marquee performance by a female lead in the films up for best picture.  I must admit to not having been blown away by this year’s leading ladies overall, which I also admit is a loaded statement considering the male centric nature of filmmaking as an art form.  Besides films like Gone Girl and Still Alice (projects completely centered on the performance of the female lead) women have been completely overshadowed by their male counterparts.  This easily could have been the case for Felicity Jones as her costar is portraying Stephen f*ing Hawking of all people.  However, Jane is a character that cannot be ignored as she becomes the audience’s anchor to the emotional toll diseases like ALS has on the families of the diagnosed.  Jones is masterful at morphing from love struck innocence to burned-out housewife with such subtlety, that the audience is barely aware at her character’s shift in status.  Jane begins every bit the wide eyed, eager youth and matures into a confidant and competent woman at her wit’s end thanks to the path she willingly chose years ago.  Look for even greater performances from Felicity Jones in the very near future.

Now I’d like to introduce you to this year’s Academy Award winner for best actor in a leading role:  Eddie Redmayne.  He may not be the best looking actor out there, but he has the true performance skills to discover a character, make it his own and then make it connect with his audiences.  Seeing some of the stills from the film paired side by side with actual photographs of Hawking at the time is almost shocking how the hair, costume and make-up teams transformed Redmayne into a virtual doppleganger.  Eddie displays the same command of the scene, intimate facial expression and eye piercing charisma of every other esteemed actor nominated for Oscar gold, but the one thing that separates him from everyone else is the physicality he demonstrates in his role.  Wait, what?  Physicality?  Isn’t Stephen Hawking that wheelchair guy?  Yes, yes, we’ve been through that, but the fact remains that Eddie Redmayne does not have ALS and the conscious physicality required of him in every scene that calls for the virtual deletion of parts of his body as the film progresses is immense.  We haven’t seen a performance of such titanic disempowerment since Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot.  Towards the end of the film, when Hawking is at his weakest, Redmayne is working his hardest.  No other actor has reached this level of intimacy with his or her character on film this year.  The only thing that could possibly prevent his victory on Oscar night is politics.

The Theory of Everything is a fine film that showcases some very impressive filmmaking despite a very meager budget of $15 million dollars.  Those interested in learning more about Stephen Hawking, the man (as opposed to the science) should certainly check this out at your earliest convenience.  Eddie Redmayne delivers a great performance for a great role and it isn’t to be missed by any who claim to be fans of the cinema.  However, I would not pick this film as a favorite to walk away with the grand prize of best picture overall.  Other films (American Sniper and Boyhood) have made equally meaningful commentary on life but have done so with significantly higher entertainment value.  The Theory of Everything is a film that can be appreciated by anyone, but may not necessarily be for everyone.

Black and White and Red All Over

A Motion Comic … er, Film Review of Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:16893:]]

The sort of, but not really sequel to Sin City (2005) has hit the summer of 2014, and I was a bit confused by it all.  Certain characters are still alive and kicking while others remain deceased as per the events that transpired in the first film.  I understand that this franchise is Frank Miller’s neo-noir wet dream where time (I presume) doesn’t have any real meaning, but this isn’t a comic book or a motion comic.  It’s a film adaptation that essentially has no loyalty to its predecessor whatsoever so if the viewer’s only experience in this mythos is the first film, A Dame to Kill For will leave you scratching your head.  But then, co-directors Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez didn’t intend on even this much thought going into their flick in the first place.  The fact is that this Sin City is yet another protein shake of testosterone and steroids that’s as satisfying to men as it is vomit-inducing to women.  The brand is an exercise in unadulterated, hyper graphic, human behavior where all men are cavemen and all women are whores.  And that’s fine; what with the first amendment and all.  The film would have been made a bit more substantial if it tried to use all that shock value for some kind of commentary, but alas it’s just 2 hours of raw machismo.  Again, that’s totally fine, but when the audience has seen this kind of graphic violence time and time again (and that’s this film’s ONLY Ace up its sleeve), well, the one trick pony gets as old and busted as Mr. Ed.

Frank Miller penned the script for A Dame to Kill For and once again utilizes every character self narrating every passing thought in addition to their dialogue in every scene.  It was an expository VO strategy that wore out quickly in 2005 and is equally tiresome today, not just for the constant droll of incessant speak, but because the audience isn’t allowed to use any imagination to make their own sense of a scene because every scene is always telling them what to think.  As for the story, here’s the abridged version:  I’m a man; therefore I have an insatiable ego that I attempt to feed with violence, dominance, murder and substance abuse.  I’m a woman; therefore I am super sexy and must use my body to get brainless men to do whatever I want for selfish motives.  Yawn.  The dialogue and plot for every sub-story at work in this film is pedestrian.  It is mechanical, it is formulaic and worst of all it is boring.

One fun thing that is happening in this film is the patented Sin City color scheme that features stark contrasts between black and white, with some strategically placed splashes of vibrant color within every frame.  It’s a visual aesthetic that requires an army of visual effect artists that are at the top of their games.  Their combined effort along with the make-up, costume and set design departments deliver an impactful experience that clearly channels the comic book/graphic novel format, but of course, in live action.  Sincerely, two thumbs way up for the visual style and presentation of this film.

Nudity!  It’s a significant element of this film, and before I give you the rundown, know that there is 0% full frontal male that makes the final cut as every instance where one would see a penis is conveniently concealed by a perfect placement of shadows that reveals no texture and no line so thoroughly that it’s as if a black hole were placed above the crotch.  With a film as pulpy as this, the audience is bound to be subjected to some amount of it, but I hate to disappoint all those horny boys out there; Jessica Alba’s non-nudity clause in all of her film contracts is still going strong.  Sure, that’s really weird for a character in a film as R-rated as this that happens to be a stripper, yet shows the least skin, but whatever.  In Miller and Rodriguez we trust, right?  Character actress Juno Temple goes topless for a scene with Ray Liotta which will turn some heads and get the attention of directors and producers for future parts because she is quite lovely, but is not called upon to discard all her apparel, and the scene is shot from a wide perspective, so this one instance in the buff could easily qualify as “tasteful.”  Of course, all this pales in comparison to the frequent display of an exquisite example of the female form in all its glory by one Ms. Eva Green, a woman who has said Hollywood only sees her as a femme fatale and naturally plays exactly that in this film.  Green appears to be a woman born to be placed in front of a camera and is as confidant an actress with or without a stitch of clothes on her.  Let’s just say there’s nothing left to the imagination regarding Eva Green in Sin City. 

The action in this film is as dynamic as a transition between cells in a comic book.  Again, this was a conscious choice for this production, but it doesn’t translate well to 34 FPS.  I found the “kung fu” displayed by Jamie Chung as Miho to be laughable especially when she’s shooting her bow.  The gunplay was average and fisticuffs featured a lot of cutaways to shadows.  Even the scenes featuring characters driving in this movie seemed flat and lifeless.  The true “eye candy” of this film is entirely composed of the previous two paragraphs of this review.

I feel torn concerning the performances of this film because every actor is called upon to behave like an over the top, cartoon character and everyone does an exceptional job in doing so.  Sure, every character is edgy, dark, disturbed and raw, but they’re cartoons nonetheless.  As such, not many of the actors leave a lasting impression as Bruce Willis walks around a few times, Mickey Rourke punches and growls, Josh Brolin looks really angry all the time, Rosario Dawson is lucky to be there and Jessica Alba dances really well.  On the other hand, Powers Boothe (what a stage name) plays an exceptionally nefarious villain in Senator Roark, Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the one character worth generating any sympathy for as Johnny and Eva Green is no woman to trifle with as Ava the “Dame to Kill For” whom everyone can’t stop loving to hate.

The circumstances aren’t laid out too well for this Sin City “sequel.”  A hard R plus mild entertainment value by themselves suggest a weak take even from the global box office, but when factoring in the stereotypically male branding of this franchise, not too many girlfriends would tolerate being dragged to this one.  The storytelling at work in this film may be graphic, but it’s far too nonchalant to generate any suspense, intensity, or even intrigue outside of the brief window of the present moment.  Yeah I get it; (Ba)Sin City is really messed up, populated and run by messed up people.  My question is, “And then what?”  I can appreciate looking at beautiful women as much as the next guy, but a movie must do more than look pretty to get my endorsement.  This is a must-see strictly for those hot for Eva Green.

Nothing Says “I Love You” Like … Another 80s Remake?

A Film Review of Robocop (2014)

By Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:13737:]]

First I’d like to say happy Valentine’s Day or Weekend or whatever to everyone taking some extra time to show some of those good vibrations to the ones closest to your hearts.  I wish you all good times, good talks and good (where appropriate) whoopee.

As for the Robocop remake, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “I don’t like remakes.”  I will never appreciate the principal of revisiting fictions of the past, calling it a “re-imagining” and then putting the exact same title on it.  Heck, so many remakes claim to be exploring different perspectives, different takes and doing different things with the plots when in fact they really don’t and if they do their characters aren’t as good, the stories aren’t as interesting and the new setups seem odd in that nothing seems to be relevant to the original film, thus invalidating the need to copy the title in the first place.  A good example of this would be another Paul Verhoeven film that was recently remade back in 2012: Total Recall. 

So if you don’t want to copy an original film (frame for frame) with contemporary special effects and computer graphics, but still want a story that harkens to its roots and still be good, all at the same time, what do you do?  The options are limitless for the unrestricted writer, but in the case of the Robocop remake, the strategy at work was some aesthetic bodywork to the candy coated shell of a sci-fi/action film while completely overhauling the gooey, caramel filling of pulp shock value and ultra-violence by upgrading the engine with the heart healthier dark chocolate of political and social commentary concerning the ghost in the machine, the manipulation of “security” at home and abroad as well as Corporate America’s role in the whole equation.  Essentially, director José Padilha and writer Joshua Zetumer turn the Robocop franchise into something else and in my opinion, something much more interesting.  Gone are the excessive blood squibs, gone are the close-ups on limb explosions, gone is the casual vulgarity, gone is the shameless sexual objectification, gone is the R-rating.  What remains is incorporating a nearly dead human being into the body of a robot, his (or its) struggle to reintegrate with his family and community, corporate conspiracy and action (despite the fact that it cuts away every time for PG-13 purposes).

This contemporary update of Robocop features a story and script that clearly desires to step away from its predecessor, but what’s astounding is that it does so with such assertiveness that is extremely rare coming from a rookie in the screenwriting game.  Joshua Zetumer has one credit on imdb.com (and no bio – with a few un-credited rewrites) and it’s for Robocop (2014).  Perhaps the collaboration of MGM and Columbia-Sony had seen far too many shameless rip-offs by other up and coming writers that adding another to the list of remake throwaways wasn’t worth another hundred million dollar budget.  The studios took two major risks in 1) putting novices in command of production and 2) signing off on such a divergent tale from the original.  I imagine that Padilha and Zetumer were constantly reassuring studio execs at every stage that “he’s still Robocop, he’s still shooting bad guys, he’s still going toe to toe with other robots – don’t worry.” 

With any story, there are strengths and weaknesses.  As a whole, the Robocop remake is a much more intelligent use of the license that delves into global issues concerning security and the various costs of said security paid by governments, communities and individuals.  In lieu of the random commercials that framed the audience in 80s sentiment from the original, the remake features media commentary from Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson) who lays out the exposition of this not so distant future as well as commentating on the progression of the active plot through the eyes of the media machine.  These scenes run much longer than 30 second spots, but give the audience a much fuller perspective of the pro-corporate, pro-robot and pro-right wing perspective when it comes to the politics of handing all security over to inanimate objects. 

It also features a large amount of dialogue concerning the ethics, morality and/or philosophy of the melding of man and machine.  Every scene between Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman) and Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is intensely emotional as Murphy must deal with the gut-wrenching shock of accepting his new reality while the doctor must deal with the ever increasing guilt of “What have I done?!” to this living, breathing person. 

All of this extra time spent with dialogue and exposition certainly leaves less room for the eye candy that is CG-driven action.  I would guess that the actual amount of gunplay scenes are close to even between the original and remake, but everyone will remember the original for its graphic violence, which can easily be mistaken as being more “active” in and of itself.  The remake attempts to compensate with much cleaner and fluid action sequences that features Robocop being more limber than look-away headshots and the odd, head-torso turn when navigating the general public.  This Robocop moves in and out of cover quickly, can make a motorcycle fly and wields guns akimbo.  The action also cuts away to some jarring, first person perspective shots from Robocop himself, featuring the various targeting and vision modes he’s privy too behind the helmet.  I’m somewhat on the fence in regards to these moments because they seem a bit too video-gamey and I’d rather stay in Robocop’s world and not cross over to Call of Duty.  The action is framed with a good enough balance among medium, wide and (obligatory) close-up shots that communicates robotic movement that is indeed superior to human and not simply a walking tank that stomps through its opposition with the grace of a dinosaur.

Creating a Robocop remake that is more intent with explaining the method rather than showing off the active madness demands a cast that will not mail-it-in at any point, from top to bottom.  Thankfully, the performances all rank from solid to exceptional thanks in large part to established talent filling most of the roles.  Michael Keaton makes for a less nefarious corporate villain behind OCP (but a villain nonetheless) who channels Steve Jobs in terms of presence, but combines it with the savvy of a pure salesman with no medical or technical proficiency to speak of.  Jackie Earle Haley is pigeon-holed into another bad-guy role as OCP’s head robot-drone security man who provides a singular opposition to Robocop outside of the waves of drones he must dispatch.  Haley’s smarmy delivery provides some welcome comic relief and general bad-assery.  Jay Baruchel’s Tom Pope is your prototypical marketing/advertising tool who thinks only in terms of image and the way to sell image and he thankfully doesn’t develop some smooth-talking, suave presence just because the role demanded it.  He is still the same awkward speaking, sniveling nerd, but just in a better suit that makes the audience want to hate the principal of “commercializing” more than we already do. 

Abbie Cornish’s Clara Murphy is not put into many opportunities to succeed because she’s given one scene to establish “loving, devoted wife” and the rest of the time she is a woman put through the meat grinder of her husband being transformed into a machine, being manipulated by OCP and trying to retain her son’s (and her own) sanity amidst it all.  With her role solely dedicated to demonstrating the personal toll of such a science experiment, it is impossible to demand actual chemistry with onscreen husband Alex Murphy, of which there is basically none.  As for Robocop, Joel Kinnaman does a very adequate job in a leading role that requires less and less of his entire body to produce a performance.  He portrays a tough as nails, undercover cop quite exceptionally, but it is his emotional vulnerability as Robocop “behind the curtain” or rather, as “a fraction of a man” who realizes a monstrosity in his new reality that any rational person would be begging to reject and abort.  It’s a performance that’s as real as green screen gets.

However, this film really belongs to two actors.  Samuel L. Jackson’s Tom Novak segments essentially produce a black Bill O’Reilly who presents his right-wing perspective with such commercial nuance that I keep expecting him to say “What’s in your wallet?” all the time.  The fact that he plays his character with such seriousness and intensity makes his argument so shameless and un-forgivingly villainous that he’s about as cartoonish a politician as your garden-variety, hard-line Republican who actually buys into all the BS, or at least provides a convincing performance.  Really?  A purely synthetic police and military is such a great idea because they prevent American casualties, feel no fatigue and are most importantly “incorruptible?”  Sure, robots, machines and software can’t be hacked, reprogrammed or effectively unplugged to accomplish that feat.  CEO’s may be controlling the economic strings, but media icons like a Tom Novak can seduce and ensnare the rest of society which is basically anyone within eyeshot of a TV.  Jackson may not be a “main character” in the Robocop remake, but he will be the one you remember.

This film is as much (if not more) Gary Oldman’s as it is (technically) Joel Kinnaman’s.  For the life of me, I simply could not figure Oldman for throwing his hat into the remake parade because quite frankly, I thought it beneath an actor of his caliber who’s certainly made more than enough money over his career to be lured by a paycheck film.  As the film stands, his role is a lynchpin to the plot and is ironically called upon to make the case for humanism despite his character being a scientist with medical background and a specialization in cybernetics.  That’s the kind of role that Gary Oldman would be interested in and he expertly conveys a man torn between duty and morality; between the “could” of science and the “should” of science.  The audience falls in love with his character in his very first scene and is constantly troubled by his inner turmoil thanks to the circumstances he is pushed into thanks to his job. 

The Robocop remake is not meant to have any of the insight or intent of the original film which was an 80s period piece built around corporate greed, gluttonous consumerism and how it all connects to crime.  Our corporate taskmasters remain in this day and age with basically the same agenda, but their influence has expanded to more than just the major cities of America.  The larger “crime” at work is its infiltration abroad and the potential to invade the individual’s (literal) inner space.  This film deals with the Frankenstein metaphors, the social ambiguities and the influence of “the conglomerate” directly through dialogue and has no interest in dressing it up as something else like ultra-violence.  Some may be turned on by this, while others may be left pining for crotch shots and dismemberment.  I would have liked to see an R-rated cut of this evolved take on Robocop, but alas, one can’t escape the business tether of Hollywood Land.  Regardless, I was impressed at this film’s balance between brains and brawn despite the handicap of PG-13 and it tells a great story by emphasizing plot over spectacle. 

This film is a success as a standalone.  While it pays very modest respect to its predecessor with a couple familiar lines, retaining most of the original characters while altering some genders and ethnicities, as well as the general look of the lead, I would have loved this story to be entirely original; in name as well as in spirit.  This film still doesn’t change my mind in regards to the negative stigma of remakes and reboots because this film had less to do with a re-presentation and more to do with slickly using an established franchise to satisfy studio execs while an entirely different story is told, emphasizing entirely different things, yielding a completely different experience from the original.  Most remakes don’t have any of that in their culmination and execution.  This one does and I would, in fact, buy that for a dollar!

There and Back; Again and Again…

A Film Review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

By: Lawrence Napoli

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:12887:]]

The Lord of the Rings prequel films continue to expand and evolve in grandiose fashion thanks to Peter Jackson’s next chapter in his adaptation of The Hobbit.  Unfortunately, by the end of this film I had a much deeper awareness (or rather, loathing) for this prequel’s “expansive” nature due to the fact that this film shows the audience more of the same types of traveling, battling and CG generated sequences that we’ve come accustomed to for four films now.  Mind you, this is not a criticism of the extremely high proficiency with which this film was shot, performed in and presented thanks to the miracle of digital effects.  I was simply bored with the story overall.  Every minute that passed in the theatre’s relatively uncomfortable seats solidified my lower posterior cell by cell.  By the end credits I was convinced this was the longest LotR film by far (which is incorrect as that distinction goes to The Return of the King with a whopping 201 minute run time). 

The “magic” of these Hobbit films seems to be getting lost due to the fatigue of LotR familiarity and an effort to “fill minutes” with scenes rather than using them to build the plot with a series of moments that actually matter towards some climactic end.  Yes, yes, Peter Jackson will be the first to state that his Tolkien adaptations are really meant to be seen together: back to back to back.  To that I say: “Very well!  Bring me to this 9 hour, cinematic marathon!”  Oh wait, such an event would never occur under the current theatre system because they would barely squeeze two screenings in a day and more screenings means more money which is what makes the Hollywood World go ‘round.  Long story short: Peter Jackson is allowed his artistic preferences as an exceptional filmmaker, but these Hobbit adaptations are nowhere close to the self-contained nuggets of dramatic fantasy tales represented by his own Lord of the Rings Trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King. 

There is a bit of a writing faux pas to initially explain why this second Hobbit film in particular misses.  First of all, Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit) really isn’t the main character here.  In fact, there are several gaps in this film where he is all but forgotten.  I understand that the Dwarven expedition to reclaim their home isn’t really his quest, but all of these LotR stories are about being mindful of the smaller things in life that may in fact be more powerful and important than larger ideas and conflicts that regularly consume our attention.  Plus, it’s also a neat perspective on the hero’s journey to experience it through the eyes of a weaker character (despite his discovery of a unique power).  The Desolation of Smaug is Thorin’s (the leader and most powerful of the Dwarves) journey with some timely aid of a Hobbit on the side.  Second is the inflated importance and screen presence of Orlando Bloom’s Legolas.  Don’t get me wrong, I like his character in addition to the way Bloom plays it, but his role does not advance the plot of the main characters in any way and should therefore not exceed that of a cameo appearance, much like Saruman and Galadriel in the first Hobbit.  I suspect his featured status in The Hobbit: Part 2 of 3 is only to infuse some much needed action and combat-acrobatics that Dwarves, Hobbits and Half-lings of all sorts are apparently not capable of here.  Third, the titular character “Smaug” and the scenes that feature him are absolutely captivating and masterfully played by Martin Freeman as Bilbo and the disembodied voice of Benedict Cumberbatch.  The problem is the audience has to wait almost two hours to get to that part.

Ultimately, the weakness of The Hobbit Trilogy thus far boils down to lacking some serious charm and development when it comes to character.  A group of heroes going on a journey against great odds must have moments onscreen when individuals identify themselves which endears them to the audience.  Bilbo (an excellent main character) is a recovering optimist seeking to fit in and goes one on one with a dragon and he is completely absent from half of this film.  Gandalf is the same crotchety old wizard with a tendency to leave the group the first chance he gets in order to get his butt kicked, and the audience is not surprised by any of this because we’ve seen it play out in exactly the same way as in every other LotR film.  Thorin is the angry Dwarf would-be king who’s too mightier-than-thou to have Aragorn’s (Viggo Mortensen) roguish charm but is portrayed in these prequels as the substitute for that exact character type.  And the rest of the group is comprised of supporting character #1, supporting character #2, etc.  As a collective, our heroes are simply not as interesting as Harry Potter’s classmates, as iconic as The Rebel Alliance or as diverse as the original Fellowship, and there’s no excuse for that seeing how Peter Jackson has three whole feature length films to get an audience to invest in these guys.  An attempt was made in this film to explore a subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), but that was literally two scenes, and apparently they are now totally in love forever.   

The Desolation of Smaugis a very beautiful film to look at.  Once again, there are plenty of breathtaking landscapes (both natural and digital) to gaze at.  Elvin combat is an exquisite ballet that defies the laws of gravity and is masterfully captured by a series of tracking shots during the river sequence.  Sauron (The Eye) reveals itself for the first time to Gandalf in an extremely terrifying way that gives some very interesting visual context as to what composes the iris.  Pro tip: The audience has never seen this detail in the original trilogy.  And of course there’s Smaug himself: who redefines what it means to depict such a mythical beast in cinematic reality.  The scale and detail of his enormity is matched only by his equally grand lair of shimmering gold and the menacingly seductive nature of his voice (thank you Mr. Cumberbatch).  The union of LotR and Peter Jackson has never failed to deliver the visual eye candy.

Performances by the cast are solid and are defined by their consistency, but no one stands out, steals scenes or delivers something truly memorable.  The exception is that the digital characters in this entire mythology are some of the best Hollywood magic has produced, and they tend to upstage their fully human costars in the LotR films.  I suppose I should not be too disappointed in the lack of a marquee human performance because the deck of characters is somewhat stacked against them.  Men and women of Middle Earth are reflections of British history from kings and nobles to peasants and pond scum.  Elves are hyper pretty people and Dwarves are ugly and stumpy.  How do any of these compare to a winged, fire-breathing calamity that’s as big as a building who’ll only give you the time of day so long as you shower him with compliments?   Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage and the rest are all fine actors, but they are mostly British people performing like British people – not exactly reinventing the wheel.

The Desolation of Smaug is a fine fantasy/adventure film that boasts much more intelligence than casual Hollywood drivel and is certainly a nice treat for the family during the holidays.  I don’t recommend this for anyone looking for more than some light fantasy fun.  This film is not a new benchmark that redefines Tolkien’s fantasy turned reality.  Chances are, you’ve seen and heard much of what’s contained within this film before, and if it were to go head to head with a comparable blockbuster such as a major comic book character film, Star Wars or even a Fast and Furious sequel, my feeling is that it would lose ticket sales to that competition (which is why we never see these films go head to head in the first place).  In one way (and one way only), I’m glad that The Hobbit Trilogy isn’t fleshing out the way its predecessor did because it puts the “multiple film per book adaptation” argument to rest.  I don’t care how many details and subplots were snubbed from any single LotR movie.  How much more did the audience need to fully understand those stories?  I don’t feel overburdened by the exposition that drags out in these Hobbit prequels; I’m disinterested in it.  There’s too much bland gobbledygook to wade through to get to the good stuff in the story.  The art of adaptation is breaking fiction down intellectually and building it back up with the concept of efficiency in mind to visually present a story that ebbs and flows while not losing an audience’s interest. 

Sure, it’s nice to have more of popular license “X” on the big screen, but we don’t need more than one Spider-Man punching Green Goblin in the face movie to understand teenage super-heroism, power and responsibility and father-son/hero-villain dynamics.  Another movie can see him fight someone else for another reason that explores a different side to his character (or every other villain to explore every aspect of his character at the same time for The Amazing Spider-Man 2).  Unfortunately, the whole film adaptation: “Part 1 of X, Part 2 of X, etc.” movement has done nothing but gain steam.  Harry Potter did it, Twilight did it and Hunger Games is going to do it.  Will this mean less concise filmmaking in the future?  Yes.  Will this frenzy fanboys and alienate everyone else?  Maybe.  Will this yield more money for the Hollywood machine?  Absolutely!  Well in that case, all is forgiven.  Hopefully Bryan Singer has his writing team diligently at work on X-Men: Days of Future Past Part 2 of 10 right now just to keep the ball rolling.

Pearl Jam Descends on Buffalo

Stop #2 for the North American Lightning Bolt Tour 2013

By: Lawrence Napoli and Cat Carlson

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11755:]]

So many have been eagerly anticipating Pearl Jam’s return to the touring circuit that as soon as it was announced, scoring tickets for any of the venues instantly became a hot commodity and awfully complicated if you weren’t waiting in a line at the box office or some website well in advance.  My own adventure had me perusing tickets.com with multiple laptops only to be held in a virtual waiting line for which fate alone would determine the quality of my seats.  Despite the three ring circus that process wound up being, I was pleased with getting tickets at all because Pearl Jam happens to be my girlfriend’s favorite band.  I, unfortunately, am not a “music guy” and more of a “movie guy” and was only modestly familiar with their work mostly from the early to mid 90s, but I was very excited to go to a live rock show because the word everywhere was that they always put on great shows.  As for me, only a recent addition to the Ten Club and relative novice in all things Pearl Jam; stop #2 in the North American Lightning Bolt Tour was nothing short of electrically charged adrenaline that cycled from the stage, into First Niagara Center, onto the audience and back.  It was an amazing show, and I felt so privileged to catch Vedder and co. towards the beginning of a tour with fresh legs.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11756:]]

The show itself started 45 minutes late as we were all wondering how on Earth an opening band could delay the main event for so long.  As it turned out, there was NO opening band as Pearl Jam approached the stage with minimal effects and maximum fanfare.  “Light,” “light bulbs,” and “lightning” were ever present on the stage as lighting effects which were obvious references to their upcoming album Lightning Bolt, but what I wasn’t expecting was the maximum energy being exerted and sustained by Pearl Jam and Vedder himself for the duration of a three hour show.  As soon as they came out, everyone stood up and no one sat down until the last encore was taken.  What follows is an incomplete set list for the evening: just a few notables and moments my girlfriend, Cat and I found most interesting.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11757:]]

Pearl Jam started out with a song from the new album called “Pendulum” which would be one of the slower numbers in comparison to the rest of the evening and followed up with “Low Light” from the Yield album of 1998.  Both songs set the mood right away and allowed the audience to ease into the concert.

Then came “Sometimes” (No Code, 1996) and “Corduroy” (Vitalogy, 1994) and anyone could clearly see Eddie was really starting to shift gears to a whole new level.  The dial was set immediately to 9 and Eddie toasts wine to the crowd.  But then another new song from Lightning Bolt strikes with “Mind Your Manners” (the first release off said album) and pushes that dial to 10 with the evening’s first really good, fever-pitched, song.

“Do the Evolution” (Yield, 1998) was the first of many sing-a-longs where Eddie was both pushing and feeding off of the crowd’s energy.  I particularly enjoyed my girlfriend’s own participation as her enthusiasm easily conducted to my own.  Eddie takes another moment to speak to Buffalo, gives another toast and promises that Pearl Jam would start pacing themselves because at this point it would’ve been invonceivable for the intensity to get any higher.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11758:]]

“Immortality” (Vitalogy, 1994) is one of my girlfriend’s favorite songs and according to her is “not one of their standard grunge rock” and “more of a ballad.”  It’s the kind of song that reached fans and non-fans due to it peaking at #10 on the billboard mainstream rock charts at that time in history.

“Sirens,” another new release from Lightning Bolt was my personal favorite for the entire evening which is a much more intimate song with mellow tones and on the opposite end of the style spectrum from “Mind Your Manners.”  My girlfriend notes how this song indicates how wide the scope of this new album will wind up being.

“Once,” from PJ’s debut album Ten was a full blown love fest that got the whole crowd singing with Eddie and sometimes tagging him out all together.  All the fans know the old songs and to many, PJ’s first album still happens to be the best.

The evening goes on a bit more with a relentless barrage of song after song, when Eddie takes another time out to talk about one of his mentors, Neil Young, and the story of how the song “I Got Shit” was created.  This got a good laugh from the crowd as he proceeded to play “I Got Shit” (Merkin Ball, 1995) which is another of Cat’s favorite songs which once again reached popularity on several ratings charts from the mid 90s.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11759:]]

The first encore started with Eddie addressing the audience very intimately as he thanked us all for the great energy he was receiving from the audience which, according to Cat (who was present the last time they came to Buffalo), was most certainly a vast improvement!  Vedder always tries to personalize shows to the community he’s in and mentioned how the Sabres insignia was one of the coolest looking hockey logos around – which naturally got a rise from the audience. 

Pearl Jam proceeds with “Off He Goes” (No Code, 1996) which Eddie describes as a song about what happens when you don’t get enough time at home.  Is this perhaps a self portrait?  Is this merely the price one pays for fortune and glory?

Vedder then takes another pause with the audience to share how his youngest daughter scored her first goal in soccer that day and that while he felt really bad about missing it, the crowd’s good energy and a good show so far certainly made him feel better.  It really makes you feel for talented entertainers whose professions require them to be on the global move because their art is a double edged sword of success: passion & price.  Vedder follows that statement with “Future Days,” another new song from Lightning Bolt which was a perfect bookend to that moment.

Eddie then made a very nice gesture to the ¼ of the arena that was seated behind the band for the entire evening thus far by playing “Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town” (Vs., 1993).  It was another high energy, high participation song and a nice reward for a lot of people that got some pretty crappy seats, but it really made me wonder why the First Niagara Center would be so greedy to sell those seats in the first place.  Sure, it gave a bunch of people an opportunity to see the show at all, but I really hoped they paid a fraction of the price.

The second encore had Eddie talking to the audience about what the proper nomenclature is for describing a native of Buffalo, NY.  “Are you a Buffalonian?  A Buffaloite?  (Jeff interjects a Bison?).”  At this point, Vedder mentions that his favorite person from Buffalo is Vincent Gallo.  (Sigh)  I give the man a slight pass for the simple fact that Gallo is probably the only person Eddie Vedder has ever met from Buffalo.  Some people really dig Gallo’s experimental art, but I don’t care one little bit for the film Gallo is most known for in Buffalo ’66.  I haven’t seen a more depressing, self-absorbed, narrative on film that quite honestly, couldn’t paint Western New York in worse light.  Perhaps Vedder was unaware that the classy Gallo sells his own sperm on the merchandising link of his own website vincentgallo.com?  I could go on and on, but that’s a whole other article. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:11760:]]

Vedder follows that particular failed attempt at personalizing to the crowd (because the Gallo reference got zero reaction from anyone but me) with “Go” (Vs., 1993).

The show wrapped up around 11pm without an appearance form the standard “Yellow Ledbetter” and instead closed with a cover of The Who’s “Baba O’Riley” (Teenage Wasteland).  This is Eddie’s regular tambourine-smashing act that had as much energy (if not more) than he had at 8:30.

This was an amazing show to experience and that’s coming from a non Pearl Jam acolyte.  My girlfriend Cat had a wonderful time as she was moving and clapping to the music all evening.  She made specific note of how this was a much better show than the last one she witnessed in Buffalo.  As an additional side note, the interactive scenery that deployed from above the stage at various times during the show was a little atypical for Pearl Jam.  It involved a tiered string of rustic-style light bulbs that seemed to evoke some kind of Tesla imagery for obvious reasons.  Eddie and the rest of the band played with them regularly as they would be lowered so close to the stage that any of them could bat them around with their hands or their guitars.  Cat predicts that Vedder will most certainly shatter one of them before the North American tour is done.

Even if you aren’t a fan of Pearl Jam, but like good rock music performed live, do your best to get some tickets for the Lightning Bolt Tour.

Pearl Jam “Lightning Bolt” is now available through iTunes and Amazon.