Director:  Peter Segal
Writers: Tim Kelleher and Rodney Rothman
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Robert DeNiro, Kim Basinger, Kevin Hart and Alan Arkin
Studio: Warner Brothers

“Grudge Match” wants to matter. But, it’s the latest entry into the world of old man cinema. While I get the push to release the film at Christmas, I can’t say that the film needed to exist. I love sports cinema, but do we need to have another tale of old men beating the odds to prove that they are as relevant as the young? The usual tropes are there. The guys are trying to recapture glory, while appreciating what they have. There’s an old manager, illegitimate kid and an old girlfriend returning to the scene. Feelings are high and the tension grows even higher.

Stallone and DeNiro are better than this. Well, they were thirty years ago. Now, DeNiro is trying to gain credibility back while Stallone is just trying to get movies made. You have to respect that they can still command a Holiday picture. Regardless of what it might seem, I’m not hoping for either actor to fall on their face. I grew up in a time where Rambo and “Raging Bull” were the order of the day. That being said, it becomes easy to fall on audience familiarity. Is there new room to carve out with a comedy about two aging boxers? Maybe, but I doubt that it could carry a feature.

Boxing has always been a crutch for American cinema. Whether it involves tragedy or comedy, American audiences love to see people struggle to learn how to participate in organized violence. But, there’s a beauty to the pugilistic scene. Boxers are usually working class low-rent slobs that do what they can to make ends meet. They are loveable heroes that remind us of the eternal struggle to break even. Sometimes, their managers steal their money and their bodies fail them. Audiences eat that up, since they want somebody that they can self-identity. Naturally, it’s a fit for an older audience.

Still, there needs to be a film for older viewers around the holidays. These guys proved their worth by allowing “The Lincoln Lawyer” to break even at the box office. These older viewers crave a story that allows them to measure their life against a fantasy well worth living. The problem is that it’s a farce and close-examination shows the flaws of this mindset. Old boxers don’t reunite for one last fight, they crumble and decay. But, I doubt that we’re ever going to see that onscreen. That’s why I’ve got to recommend skipping the film.

RELEASE DATE: 12/25/2013

Director:  Peter Jackson
Writers: Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens and Guillermo del Toro
Cast: Martin Freeman, Sir Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Lee Pace and Benedict Cumberbatch
Studio: New Line / Warner Brothers

“The Desolation of Smaug” was better than I expected. But, I have never been a super fan of the original Lord of the Rings books or films. But, I always held a special place in my heart for “The Hobbit”. I don’t know how much of that is Rankin/Bass or actually reading the book in one sitting. That being said, it represented Tolkien’s ideas at his best. Clear-cut mythology working with a sense of a defined world. Characters were quaint, yet bigger than life. There was no fat to the material, just a grand adventure.

The second film in a trilogy always has the hardest work to undertake. “The Desolation of Smaug” has to sell the villain that carried the background of the first film, while helping the Dwarves to take back their birthright. I guess that’s why so many viewers have had trouble with where the second film chooses to end. Smaug’s death, the Laketown folk or the pending War with the Five Armies lays fresh on the minds of the informed audience. Expectations are breaking the narrative in a race to provide something that matters to the core audience.

There is something to this trilogy that underlies the problems with prequels. When the audience understands the consequences of the film’s actions and knows the outcome, what is there to gain from watching the film? It’s an invitation to marvel at the expected and to throw your hopes on the screen. That’s not healthy and it only leads to disappointment when Evangeline Lilly gets shoehorned into an already crowded movie. So, what should the viewer do with his/her expectations?

Art isn’t a democracy and the audience should have realistic expectations for film. Yeah, the Jackson additions don’t make any sense for The Hobbit as we know it. But, what version of The Hobbit are you sticking to as an aging viewer? Did you give Rankin/Bass that much grief for their changes? The least said about the Russian TV version, the better. If you never saw it, YouTube it after you get out of your showing.

Ultimately, the film’s legacy will be made or broken by future Tolkien fans. In the immediate now, we’re going to balance expectations of fans and the constant malaise of an over-exposed audience. The only thing new I gleamed from my screening was that 48 frames per second is starting to become my preferred way to view heavily CG’d movies. The animation flows much easier for the eye and the environments look real. I celebrate increased cinema technology, but the films must be able to keep up with it. Hopefully, the third Hobbit film makes this prequel trilogy worth it.

RELEASE DATE: 12/13/2013