With Great Power Comes Great Rebootability: The Amazing Spider-Man Review

It's a funny sort of world we live in when a film franchise that's merely ten years old can be rebooted without a second thought. Sam Raimi's goofy, but highly entertaining and endearing first Spider-Man flick was released to rave reviews and huge box office numbers on May 3rd, 2002. Thanks to a splendidly touching performance by Tobey Maguire and the apt direction of Mr. Raimi, the superhero genre reached a whole new level of heartfelt quality. It was quickly followed by the far superior Spider-Man 2, which is easily one of the greatest superhero films of all time, upping the emotional stakes as well as the quality of its action sequences. Sure, Spider-Man 3 had to come along and ruin everyone's fun, but the lasting legacy of the first two Spidey entries in Raimi's trilogy are so strong and they offer such pure, heartfelt entertainment that this painfully awful 3rd entry could easily be forgiven. After all, it was earnest enough and eager to please despite all of it's painful missteps. It would have been very easy for Raimi to dust himself off and pick up where he left off, but, in this world of Batman Beginnings and Casino Royales, I suppose the suits at Sony decided that would be too much trouble and instead opted to hop the reboot train to start again with a fresh slate. As a result, only five years after Spider-Man 3 disappointed expectations, we find ourselves with a film like The Amazing Spider-Man - A mixed bag of far too much familiar and not nearly enough fresh that offers highly satisfactory entertainment without quite living up to its namesake.

At its core, The Amazing Spider-Man has no particular reason to exist. When it came to Batman Begins, Casino Royale, or even the spectacular J.J. Abrams Star Trek, each respective franchise had found itself at the end of its creative rope in dire need of rejuvenation making the prospect of starting over a promising one. Not only that, but each one of these reboots managed to bring something fresh to the table story and character-wise, making each film an exhilarating take on well-worn legends: Batman Begins told the story of how Bruce Wayne came to don the cape and cowl; Casino Royale showed us a Bond who was more brutal and human as opposed to the invincible super spy that had grown stale over the years; Star Trek re-invigorated a stale franchise with its exciting take on the story of how the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise came to be, while, even more impressively, honoring the canon of the Star Trek saga. The Amazing Spider-Man never gives us any reason why Spidey's origin needed to be retold and, as a result, retreading this territory makes the first hour or so feel remarkably blah. We find ourselves hitting every single story beat that has already been flawlessly presented to us in Raimi's film. (The infamous spider bite, discovering powers, using said powers to get back at school bully, Uncle's death, etc.) Even worse, completely misguided alterations to the classic origin story (What is, in this writer's humble opinion, the best superhero origin story out there) change the fundamental core of Spider-Man's character and why he does what he does. Now it appears he's just another brooding vigilante as opposed to a guilt-stricken young man who learns a powerful lesson about responsibility. Not only is this change painfully uninspired, but it threatens to turn everyone's favorite wall-crawler into another wannabe Dark Knight.

Sony, let's get one thing straight:

SPIDER-MAN IS NOT BATMAN.

I cannot stress this enough. Peter Parker is not driven by a desire for revenge. He is driven by the guilt he feels for playing a part in the murder of his Uncle Ben. His selfish inaction - Inaction which directly resulted in his uncle's untimely demise - drives him to be the hero that we all know and love. Spider-Man's motivation for what he does is not about vengeance; it's about penance. Instead of trying to take advantage of the success of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece, why not embrace the character of Spider-Man as he already is, because that story in and of itself is so rich with drama and inspiration that there's no need to foolishly mimic a franchise so removed from Spidey's core essence that trying to take a page from its book only goes to show how little you knew about his character in the first place. The changes made to Spidey's origin here ultimately hurt this story and this clear lack of inspiration plays a big part in why this film is not nearly as good as it could have been.

Phew, now that I've gotten that little rant out of the way, let's get back to business.

Despite these fundamental flaws, The Amazing Spider-Man is still quality summer entertainment and the main reason it cannot be dismissed entirely is due to one beautifully brilliant and gifted actor:

Stan Lee.

Just playin. (She needs a golden calculator to divide...) Though, his cameo here is probably his best yet.

But, the real star of the show is Andrew Garfield. I've been rather vocal about my love for Mr. Garfield and my admiration for his acting chops, but it's his humanity and love for the character of Spider-Man that really won me over. He is what saves this premature reboot from falling apart completely as the superfluous money-snatching gesture it's desperately trying not to be. His Peter Parker may be a bit too confident and a bit too James Dean for my taste, but Garfield nails the core of what makes this character tick and I loved every moment of his performance. Not only that, but he helps reinvigorate the character as a wise-cracking smartass, which is such a huge part of the character and was sorely absent in Raimi's trilogy.

But, like most elements of this reboot, Garfield finds himself the victim of a shallow screenplay. Parker doesn't have much of a character arc. At the film's start, he's a snarky, confident, wise-cracking nerd who gets the girl. By the film's end, he's a snarky, confident, wise-cracking nerd who gets the girl and has superpowers. There's practically no arc. Raimi's depiction of Peter Parker was spot-on. Peter is supposed to be shy, insecure, unpopular, and, most of all, unconfident. When he obtains his superpowers, it helps him discover his confidence and a sense of self-worth that he never had before. When Maguire's Parker discovers his powers, we feel his excitement because it's clear that this is a huge change for him. For Garfield, it just feels like another day in the life and it's not nearly as much fun watching him discover his abilities. Garfield's Parker is also able to get the girl without much work and it makes their relationship much less exciting to watch, regardless of the fact that Garfield and Stone have wonderful chemistry. I went into this film completely ready to embrace Garfield as the new Spidey, but, surprisingly, I found myself missing the genuine, all-around brilliance of Maguire's performance. Still, Garfield gives it his all and is a joy to watch. Here's to hoping that, come sequel time, the story will serve him better.

Other cast members are more or less successful in their roles. Emma Stone is a wonder to behold as always and has natural chemistry with Garfield that makes their relationship feel real and entrancing. Other cast members such as Rhys Ifans, Dennis Leary, and Martin Sheen are also effective. The script never feels the need to full flesh out the character of Curt Connors/The Lizard, but Ifans performs admirably and cannot be faulted for the shallowness of the screenwriting. The same can be said for Leary who always manages to give top-notch performances even here when his character is rather one-note. The only actor who seems painfully miscast is Sally Field as Aunt May. Not only does Aunt May serve practically no purpose in this story, but Field is so completely contrary to the actual character that one wonders what exactly the producers were thinking when they chose to cast her. She is the sole poor casting choice in an otherwise strong ensemble.

(And where the hell is J. Jonah Jameson??? I guess the producers realized that there was no possible way they could live up to J.K. Simmons' flawless performance in the Raimi trilogy, so they figured they'd buy themselves some time by not introducing him in this movie. His presence is sorely missed though)

Credit must also be given to Marc Webb. By the deft talent that is on display here, you would never guess that this is only his second full-length feature. He seems to have a mastery of the trade that, while still a bit shaky, only goes to show that, once his skills are a bit more fine-tuned, he will be a directing force to be reckoned with. His action sequences are fun, fast-paced, and thrilling in a way that Raimi's trilogy never quite managed to achieve. (Minus that phenomenal train sequence from Spider-Man 2) When Spidey finally gets to duke it out with the Lizard, the action seems to be pulled straight from the pages of the comics. The effects are also top-notch and the integration of reality vs. CG is mostly seamless and impressive. The Lizard looks a bit too much like the goombas from the Super Mario Bros. movie, but he's actually a bit more effective than I thought he'd be judging from production stills and the random snippets of clips that are floating around on the internet. Webb also injects a wealth of humor into the proceedings, that keeps the film light on its feet, even when it's trying too hard to live up to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

The Amazing Spider-Man might not be necessary and it may not ever answer the question as to why we needed this series to be rebooted so soon, but, somehow, despite its flaws, it still works. The seeds are planted for what could be a really great new take on the beloved character and, if executed correctly, these future stories could more than make up for the lack of the originality on display here. One can only hope that the storytellers involved seek out their own identity instead of adopting other successful franchise identities as their own.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Men In Black 3 - Underwhelmingly Entertaining

So, stop the presses, it turns out that Men in Black 3 is actually pretty good. Believe you me, I'm as shocked to be typing it as you are to be reading it, but it's true. Sure, it never reaches the heights of the original Men in Black, which still stands tall as one of the most entertaining pieces of modern cinema out there, but it's easily better than its vastly disappointing predecessor. That may not be much of a compliment when you really think about it, but let's not think about it too much, shall we? MIB3 has had its fair share of difficulties getting to the big screen, including the fact that it began production without a completed script. It seemed like every which way you turned, some silly movie blog was posting some form of unflattering news regarding its ill-fated production. So, the fact that it's actually not bad is a rather pleasant surprise!

The plot at this point doesn't really matter - It's chock full of holes and feels ever so slight next to the larger-than-life personality of Will Smith and Josh Brolin's insanely spot-on performance as a young Agent K. Brolin's resemblance to Tommy Lee Jones' appearance and personality may be uncanny, but credit must be given where credit is due and it is Smith who deserves the glory here. He pretty much single handedly carries this movie on his shoulders with his charming personality and impeccable knack for comic timing. Jones is, sadly, absent for most of the film's running time, but thankfully so. I love the guy, but he is clearly not very interested in playing a part in these proceedings, which leaves Smith to pick up the slack whenever they're on screen together. The supporting cast is mostly anonymous - Emma Thompson shows up for a few minutes to say a few things and then disappears from the proceedings; Flight of the Conchords' Jermaine Clement is effectively threatening as a villain, but isn't given much to play with, so he never quite graduates from dull one-noteness; even Bill Hader has a fun little cameo as Andy Warhol. But, it's A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg who ends up giving the most enjoyable supporting performance. (With the exception of Brolin, of course) He's immensely charming and always a joy to watch.

The special effects also make their expected appearance and they look great - As does the creature design. The production design and effects teams should be commended. There are also some fun little action sequences here and there but they, like most of MIB3, feel underwhelming and slight. Still, the movie provides a solid two-hours of lighthearted, escapist entertainment and even wraps itself up rather nicely in a surprisingly touching way. Though you might not be kicking down the doors of Columbia/Sony demanding a MIB4, chances are if you go in with an open mind and low expectations, you'll find yourself pleasantly surprised by what's on display here.

Final Rating: 3.5/5 

(If Will Smith had performed a song for the film, I might have kicked it up to an even 4, but I guess we'll have to just make do with 'NOD YA HEAD' from MIB2...)

Shawn & Shea Vs. Prometheus

Shea’s Thoughts:

            The very first word most people would use to describe Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” would probably be prequel. The year was 1979 and it was an exciting, if not bizarre, year for movies with films like Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Apocalypse Now, Manhattan, Mad Max, Caligula and The Life of Bryan all making their mark in cinemas. It’s doubtful that Scott knew then that he was creating a cult classic when he began shooting Alien the previous year, he probably couldn’t have fathomed that he would be revisiting the same subject matter  33 years after the fact. But after watching the new film for the first time it doesn’t feel very much like a prequel. Certainly there are similarities and allusions to the original; even interconnected plot points but whereas “Alien” was Jaws in Space, this is more along the lines of a philosopher riffing absently on the toilet as he drags on fat roach. But I don’t believe it’s fair to critique this movie as though it were a prequel. It portends to stand on its own and thus it will be judged solely on the merits of a standalone film, with or without the aids or hindrances that come with being a prequel.

            It’s a fact that Ridley Scott is a master of filmmaking. He’s given us many gems in his time and if there were one adjective that can be used to describe his method of filmmaking, then I would choose “perfectionist.” Not many directors have the opportunity to release cut after cut of their films long after the original release date. Scott believes in getting it just right, even if that means tinkering away for years after everyone else has been paid and moved on. That gives me good reason to suspect we will see many directors cuts of this film as well. More than that though it tells me that when he signed on to do this film he wasn’t just interested in making more money or re-living his glory days; he was genuinely interested in telling us a story that he thought was important enough to dominate his time and talent. Thus we have “Prometheus.”

            Prometheus takes place in 2089 before the events of “Alien.” It follows the travels of scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Marshall-Green) as they attempt to uncover the origins of mankind. Their discoveries take them to a planet deep in space (2 years away in fact) where they hope to find their makers, and here is where the mayhem ensues. Scott takes quick control of the helm and guides the story patiently through its paces with great purpose and the ever-unsettling undertone of the unknown. As a director he seems to thrive in this atmosphere, collecting details seemingly at random but with such poise that it’s almost magnetic. The eye is glued to the screen and he spares not a single frame in the vast running time. “Prometheus”, then, is straight sci-fi; it isn’t action or horror or thriller but pure science fiction without the long inexhaustible dialogue that often takes place at a large council table. Here also is the story's weakness, its writing.

            Damon Lindelof has no idea how to end a story. His series “Lost” ended with giant disappointment for most of its viewers and the most notable things he’s written before now has been “Cowboys and Aliens” and episodes of “Nash Bridges” and “Crossing Jordan.”  The thought was that since he created “Lost” then he would be a perfect fit for the taut and eerie tone that “Prometheus” was striving for. Instead he comes off looking embarrassingly pseudo-intellectual by posing questions that he never intends to answer himself. The film’s premise is wonderful and intriguing and involves the audience almost immediately. He teases the mind with hints and what appear to be clues as he drops crumbs of information while holding most of it back, but ultimately it’s just a tease, in the end it feels like it was a half-baked universe and the whole premise of the film suddenly feels like cardboard. It seems that there is potent talent writhing just behind his inability to commit to an idea. Some dialogue comes off as stilted and flat but not because the cast is wooden or lacks talent. The conversations are minimalist and feel largely inconsequential. The 3^rd act is a cacophony of disappointment and spoiled opportunities as giant question are sewn up with commas and “To Be Continued’s” while the audience is punished instead of rewarded for their patience.

            It seems like some of the plot points are unclear as well. Meredith Vickers’ (Charlize Theron) sudden and random relation to Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) made all the impact of a wet rag hitting hot pavement. Even if that is supposed to mean something more in an undeclared sequel then why not wait and reveal it then when it matters more to the audience? As it stands now it just appears to be some lame attempt to create a Shyamlyan twist late in the film. It also seems unclear to me why David seems to want to destroy Shaw and Holloway and why it’s such a necessity to hide Weyland all that time. Shaw and Holloway want to find their makers and so does Weyland. He gave them the money to do it so why would they have a problem with him being on board if he funded their trip and wants the exact same thing that they do? Killing them does nothing for his goal, in fact it hinders it since they are the most qualified to help him achieve it. The logic seems false and poorly thought out if that is the case. A film that asks you to pay close attention should gird the loins of it's plot points with more than lame dialogue and unmotivated actions.

            The films saving grace is its visual deftness and the guiding hand of Ridley Scott. The cinematography by Darisuz Wolski (Pirates of the Carribean, Sweeney Todd) is celibate and restrained and entirely unobtrusive, which is remarkable because the tendency with sci-fi is to sometimes go for flash, so thank God Janusz Kaminski didn’t shoot this. Most of the time he is simply accenting the work of production designer Arthur Max, (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) who is a frequent collaborator with Scott. Together they manage to accomplish a sense of scale that I haven’t seen done that well since Star Trek (2009). The overall aesthetic is a mix of Neolithic architecture and art with a pinch of the almost organic, sinew type technology that we recall from the other Alien films; the technology that almost seems to be alive itself with bulbous buttons and vein-y cabling.

            Scott directs fantastic performance from Rapace and Fassbender and even a very pleasant turn from Idris Elba as the reluctant and dry humored captain of the ship. The same cannot be said for Charlize Theron as Meredith Vickers. From the start she was an extremely pointless character who seems to be dropped in to the plot only to cause conflict in the story through no obvious motivation. For this reason she becomes infuriating to watch. However, there are whole sequences that succeed extremely well, the "c-section" scene in particular jumps to mind and that is when you are suddenly reminded that a master is at work behind the camera. He orchestrates action and plot into one dizzying sequence that leaves you nearly exhausted from wincing. But it is all in vain, because of the slipshod writing the 3^rd act feels rushed and ultimately the audience feels cheated.

            The film, as a whole, is not a bad one. You just get the sense that you were about to watch something wonderful only to then have it all taken away from you in a greedy moment during the final minutes of the film. I’m sure they are planning another film should this one perform well at the box office and who knows what we will see there. They may attempt to give us everything we hoped to see from this film or in the more typical Lindelof fashion we could get an annoying continuance of the plot until it all comes to an extremely unsatisfactory end. Needless to say I wasn't completely disheartened but I had hoped for better.  

Rating. 3.0 out of 5.

Shawn & Shea Vs. Prometheus

Shawn's Thoughts:

It's been 33 years since Ridley Scott unleashed his Sci-Fi/Horror hybrid Alien out into an unsuspecting world. Still high off the fumes of the game-changing Star Wars, audiences rushed into Alien expecting the same carefree, whimsical fantasy adventure and instead were treated to images so shocking and horrific that some ended rushing from the theater in terror and/or vomiting all over themselves in their seats. Make no mistake, Alien is one of the most terrifying motion pictures ever made and my all-time favorite horror picture. Scott followed this up with another science fiction masterpiece entitled Blade Runner. Another film that went completely against the expectations of the time, Blade Runner was, naturally, highly under appreciated when it was first released back in 1982 and ended up being a huge flop with critics and audiences. However, like most movies that are misunderstood upon their initial release, Blade Runner's reputation grew and grew and soon the most esteemed film scholars were ranking it as one of the greats of all time. And as it should be. Blade Runner is a gorgeous film and its influence on the science fiction genre is unmistakable.

So, flash forward to the present day where film fans the world over have been eagerly awaiting Scott's more-than-promising return to the world of Science Fiction. Prometheus has always been something of a mystery. When first announced, it came with the news that it would be the long-promised prequel to Scott's classic Alien, but as the rumors multiplied, Scott continued to shut them down. Once the first preview was released, there was no question about it - Prometheus was definitely related to Alien in some way and my excitement for the film went off the charts. Scott's track record as of late had been rather weak and, as far as I was concerned, this was going to be a welcome return to form.

Mass Effect's Galaxy Map has never looked so amazing

So, with all that in mind, how does the movie end up faring? Well, unfortunately notsagood. It is neither the spectacular return of Ridley Scott's directing mastery nor the worst film imaginable. It simply is - No more, no less. And that is a crushing disappointment. Prometheus collects and recycles plotlines and visual elements from practically every Sci-Fi movie you've ever seen, including Mr. Scott's own works, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Danny Boyle's more recent and far superior Sci-Fi epic Sunshine. The film sports quite an epic scope, sure, but, despite the manifestly striking and impressive imagery, it never quite finds its own voice amongst the chaos and, as a result, it rings completely hollow. It doesn't help that the film's story is unbalanced, cliched, and filled to the brim with one note, shallow characters containing little to no personality. The performances are equally dull with poor Charlize Theron being the biggest victim of the poor writing on display here. Her character is so poorly drawn to the point of hilarity and a certain superfluous revelation near the end of the film regarding her relationship with one particular character is so ridiculous to the point that I actually burst out laughing in the theater. The rest of the cast is mostly anonymous with not much to contribute as a result of their characters not having anything to do. Even Guy Pearce makes an appearance as...an...old man...? Wait a second, why didn't they just get an old man to play that part? What exactly made Guy Pearce the 'must-have' actor for that role? The result is just a young guy in completely obvious old man make-up and it certainly doesn't help the film's credibility in any way.

 Run, Ripley, run!!!! Hey, wait a second...

The only performances worth watching come from Noomi Rapace as the film's lead heroine and Michael Fassbender in the obligatory android role. Rapace, naturally, gets the most to do and work with, which in this kind of movie means that she spends most of her screen time crying and/or running away from monsters. (Hmmm, wait a second, didn't I already see this scene in....oh, never mind) Still, she makes the most of it, and there is one particular sequence in which she is involved that is the only moment of the film that truly captures the horrific nature of the original Alien. I won't spoil it for you here, but you'll know it when you see it and you'll wish you could forget it in the best way possible. Fassbender as the android David, is a wonder to behold. He is the shining beacon in a movie of blah and his performance is charming whist being quite a tad bit unsettling. He, like most of the characters in the movie - Nay, all of the characters in the movie - gets little to nothing to do and serves nearly no purpose. Still, Fassbender is such a spectacular performer that you don't really mind it when he's on screen.

So, without much of its own story to tell and without any interesting characters to anchor some spectacular visuals, Prometheus ends up being just another empty Sci-Fi venture with some breathtaking visuals, which is all the more upsetting when you realize who directed it. There are plenty of interesting questions raised, but not a single one is answered and it makes the proceedings feel all the more pointless.

May God be with us if that Blade Runner sequel moves forward.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5



Shea's Thoughts: 
COMING SOON!!!!!!!!!!

Radioheading it up - Verizon Center, 6/3/2012

Ladies and gentlemen, it's official. After years of wondering how I've ever gotten by without seeing one of my all-time favorite bands in concert, I am pleased to announce that as of Sunday, June 3rd in the year of our Lord and Savior, I have joined the ranks of those of you who have had the immense pleasure of seeing Radiohead perform live, in person, and in glorious technicolor. I'm sure it goes without saying that this concert was a transitory experience chock full of sublime musical talent but there I go again saying things that go without saying after saying that they should have gone without saying. Catch my drift? There's much to love about Radiohead as a band. They have a reputation for being adventurous, creative, beautiful, haunting, heartbreaking, uplifting, and even slightly terrifying at times. They're easily one of the greatest bands of our time and, even if they're not your particular cup of tea, one simply cannot deny the enormous influence they've had on the contemporary music scene.

Now, all that being said, I'll admit that it took me a little while to get into them. My first exposure to them came directly from someone chastising my personal music choices. An older kid was looking through my CD binder (Remember those? Before the days of the IPod?) and he happened upon Coldplay's 'A Rush of Blood to the Head.' He scoffed, as all older kids do when they feel the need to flaunt their pretentious opinions about to cement their self-appointed superiority. "Coldplay?" He sneered. "Psssh, I listen to Radiohead. They're far superior." It was a simple statement, but it was enough to ignite the spark that lead to my picking up a copy of 'OK Computer' to see what all the fuss was about. Truth be told, the album didn't do much for me and I went back to my favorite, weepy musicians who sang about Scientists and Clocks. It wasn't until a few years ago when I picked the album back up and listened to it from beginning to end that I realized the error of my high-school mind's ways. Following my listening party of 'OK Computer' with the utter brilliance of 'Kid A' cemented their unquestionable brilliance as far as I was concerned. According to my Last.FM account, which tracks the songs I listen to and keeps a running tally of them, Radiohead is in my top five most listened to bands, placing fourth after The Beatles, Wilco, and Mr. Dylan. It's not too much of a stretch to say that they're one of my faves.

So, how did they fare live? As expected, they were ever so mind-blowing. There was so much to love and so many bright lights to see and the jittery dancing antics of Thom Yorke and the haunting chords of Jonny Greenwood's compositions and the thumping beats of Phil Selway and etc, etc, etc. Their set contained practically everything on their latest album 'The King of Limbs,' which, while quite funky in CD form, can't quite prepare you for the all-out funk of the live performances. And really, I think that's what surprised me the most. Radiohead is much funkier live than one would ever expect from a band whose most upbeat tunes are still quite dreary affairs that bask in the glory of the deepest, darkest recesses of the human mind and yet, I found myself dancing in my chair for the majority of the show. (I was too terrified to stand up as my seat was so high up that I was convinced I'd gyrate myself over the edge of the balcony and plummet to my doom)

'The King of Limbs' tunes sounded great, especially the absolutely gorgeous 'Give Up the Ghost,' which features Thom Yorke looping his voice to create the song's background vocals. Truly beautiful stuff. Nevertheless, these newer tunes were no replacement for their splendid beyond all reason classics. Songs like 'There, There,' 'Airbag,' '15 Step,' and 'The National Anthem' pack an emotional and mind-exploding wallop when performed on stage, the likes of which any self-professed music-adorer simply must experience at some point in their lives. Other lesser-known gems such as 'Kid A' and 'You and Whose Army' made more-than-welcome appearances and, though I can't quite recall the entire setlist, it was chock-full-o' hits from all over the bands efficacious career. I only wish they had performed  'Idioteque,' so I could finally witness it in all its beat-pounding, apocalyptic glory, but, oh well, you can't win 'em all. At the end of the day, the show was a masterful display of musical talent and has only served to further cement my love for the band and the belief that they are easily one of the greats.

Now if only those Wilco shows in July would get here faster.......

A Guide to the Major Theatres of the Hampton Roads Area

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Wait a Second, John Mayer's New Album is Good??

I never would have guessed it, but John Mayer's latest album (His fifth, I believe) is good. Really good. And here I was thinking I was done with that crazy cat. Seriously, I thought I'd hopped the John Mayer bandwagon a few years ago. It's nothing against him, though. Well, mostly. When he was younger he seemed earnest, funny, and eager to please in the way that all young talent tends to be. As he's grown older he's come across as more of a pompous dick, but, regardless, I'd actually been a fan of his for quite some time. From the modest, inconsequential pop rock of Room for Squares to the more mature, bluesier Continuum, Mayer has struck me as quite the musical talent and, despite his standing with all the 'hip' music fans who dismiss his tunes as simplistic pop bullshit, I've always been quick to defend his unmistakable guitar-wielding prowess. The guy made good music and I enjoyed it. So sue me.

My admiration for Mr. Mayer grew even more after I'd seen the concert film/documentary Where the Light Is. The documentary follows Mayer as he plays a solo acoustic set followed by a set with his always spectacular John Mayer Trio, which featuring the talents of master drummer Steve Jordan and the ever so brilliant bassist Pino Palladino. One of the greatest choices that Mayer has made in his musical career was choosing to recruit these two phenomenal musicians to accompany him on stage. Stripping the blues down to their basic fundamentals, they manage to capture what makes them so great. It's kind of funny that the guy who sang such nonsense as 'Your Body is a Wonderland' could play the blues in a way they haven't been played since the days of old, but you have to see it to believe it. The documentary climaxes with a set that features Mayer inviting his full band on stage. Somehow, the the full band didn't quite live up to the raw power of the Trio, but, they closed out the show well and I couldn't help but feel that the singer/songwriter at the center of it all could be well on his way to greatness.

Then Battle Studies came along and ruined everything. Okay, maybe that's a bit of a harsh criticism to put on the clearly directionless album. After all, it feels like an earnest effort on Mayer's part, but the uninspired songs and even less-inspiring songwriting was less a cause for celebration and more a cause for head scratching. Where did all the talent go? Lyrics like "Who do you love - Me or the thought of me?" had been replaced by meaningless, faux-edgy nonsense like "Who says I can't get stoned?" It felt as if Mayer, who had taken a huge leap forward rooting himself in the foundations of soul and the blues, had stumbled backwards and fallen all the way back to his anonymous, uninspired pop routine. I was ready to bid the ambitious young musician a not-so-fond farewell and, in fact, I thought I'd already done so.

 

 Heart of Gold, anybody?

And then along comes Born and Raised to remind me what I loved about Mayer in the first place. Right off the bat, the impression I got from the cover and Mr. Mayer's new appearance (Long, scraggly hair; white fedora) is that it might be the long, lost Neil Young album. As I put the album on for a first spin, this initial impression seemed to dominate my opinion of what I was listening to to the point where I'm not 100% if the album is actually Neil Young-esque or if it's just the aesthetic of the album cover combined with Mr. Mayer's fashion sense. But, no, it's not just those things (Though they do contribute quite a bit); the album is very clearly inspired by Mr. Young and the other folk greats. And it's excellent. After the soullessness of Battle Studies, Born and Raised feels like a rush of genuine feeling and its homespun nature only contributes to its intimacy. As the initial chords of the opening track 'Queen of California' start up, I could feel the smile creep upon myself - A smile that hadn't been inspired by Mayer since Continuum. This album could be a perfect companion for a long drive on the open road. This feeling is maintained from track-to-track with the particular standouts being 'Speak For Me' (Which has an opening that sounds suspiciously similar to Wilco's 'Muzzle of Bees') 'Something Like Olivia,' 'Born and Raised,' 'If I Ever Get Around To Living,' and 'Walt Grace's Submarine Test January' - Basically the whole middle portion of the album. 'Walt Grace's...' is particularly great, starting out with a jazzy flair before working into a steady drumbeat that leads into Mayer's banjo plucking.

Sure, Mayer stumbles around a bit with all kinds of silly cliches on some tracks. Such is the case with the song 'Love is a Verb' - The title itself induces a wince or two. But these missteps and Mayer's standard, generic lyrics scattered about the album can't ruin the overall feeling that Mayer has found himself again along with his ambition. Sure, nearly every song he's ever written is about some kind of lost home that he's searching for or a broken heart or blah, blah, but, as far as I'm concerned, these subjects can never grow tired and Mayer has always had a straightforward and honest approach to them that has always felt quite refreshing, even if it's not always particularly inspired or revolutionary, but who cares? Revolution is so overrated these days.

Give the title track a listen and see if you can dig it too:

NOTE: The song speeds up for about five seconds in the video above. Though the result is slightly comical, this is actually a technical error and is not featured in the actual tune. Not a sermon; just a thought.