Connect with us

Editorials

[Concert Review] Linkin Park & Incubus At The 2012 Honda Civic Tour

Published

on

Last week, Aural Pleasures co-host Bill Frye and myself went to the Palace of Auburn Hills to check out the 2012 Honda Civic Tour. While we missed opening act Mutemath, we caught headliners Linkin Park and Incubus and we wanted to share our thoughts with you! But rather than write a generic concert review, we decided to record our post-concert conversation to get the most amount of authenticity with everything still completely fresh in our minds. Check it out below

Jonathan: Alright, let’s talk about this concert. Let’s start with Incubus.

Bill: I think they’re good. I think they sounded good.

Jonathan: Yeah.

Bill: I just didn’t like their setlist.

Jonathan: Yeah, their setlist was poo poo.

Bill: It was…like…boring. Their set was kinda cool. I liked their rugs. [laughs]

Jonathan: Oh, you mean the actual stage design?

Bill: [Laughs] Yeah! I was kinda feeling the rugs.

Jonathan: Well, it looked like how it sounded. I mean, it was very chill. They had rugs, he [Mike Einziger] pulled out that Chinese instrument and I was thinking, “Man, a little bit of incense, some stoned hippie girls…there ya go.”

Bill: [Laughs] It wasn’t bad though I wish they would’ve played some of their harder stuff. But they played some good ones.

Jonathan: Yeah, it’s just that there was no energy. Even them on stage didn’t seem like they were terribly energetic.

Bill: Yeah. They weren’t bad though.

Jonathan: Yeah. It sounded good.

Bill: Their singer sounded good. Their drummer was awesome.

Jonathan: Yup. Although why was he [drummer Jose Pasillas] facing into the stage? He wasn’t facing the crowd. It was just kinda weird because I was staring at his back and I was thinking that I wanted to see him play, not his back. But can we take a moment to appreciate the bassist [Ben Kenney]?

Bill: [Laughs] That was my favorite part of the entire night!

Jonathan: [Laughs]

Bill: The bass player from Incubus was funny.

Jonathan: He was vibing. He had soul.

Bill: It looked like he was a noodle holding a guitar because he was just like [Bill starts gyrating slowly]

Jonathan: He had this thing where he did the shoulders, the back, the ass, repeat.

Bill: So yeah, there’s not really all that much else to say about Incubus.

Jonathan: There really isn’t.

Bill: It was just kind of…It upset me because I really wanted to see them, and I’m glad I did, but I’d like to see them on their own thing.

Jonathan: My worry is that on their own…it just doesn’t make sense! Here, they’re playing with Linkin Park, which is a heavier band. Yeah, they do a lot of melodic stuff but, in general, they are very high energy and they picked a really chill set! Why didn’t they pick a somewhat more energetic set?

Bill: That’s a question that few can answer, my friend.

Jonathan: It doesn’t make sense for them to say, “Well, Linkin Park is playing a heavier set so we wanted to do something mellow.” You’re playing a live f*cking show! The whole point is to amp up the crowd and get them psyched and get them enjoying it. It’s NOT to go, “Yeah, we uhhh….Honestly? We’re just really stoned.”

Bill: [Laughs] Well like, what I didn’t understand is that every time they’d play a high energy song they’d immediately kill the energy.

Jonathan: Yeah!

Bill: They’d play “Megalomaniac” and they just went to [makes energy-killed sound].

Jonathan: And how about whatever song they ended on?

Bill: Yeah, it’s called “Aqueous Transmission”. [Laughs] It’s really…it’s really…Yeah, it’s bad.

Jonathan: I wouldn’t call it depressing but just incredibly mellow.

Bill: It was mellow to the point that I didn’t pay attention to it.

Jonathan: Yeah. It kinda all bled into one droning noise.

Bill: So yeah, I didn’t hate it overall but it was kinda ehhh. Technically they were great, they were just boring.

Jonathan: Totally agree. Okay, Linkin Park!

Bill: I thought they were awesome!

Jonathan: Yeah, this was a very good show.

Bill: They came out swinging. They had, like, five high-energy songs. And they only really had like one or two low-energy songs.

Jonathan: And they placed them just right. It broke up the high-energy enough so that people could catch their breath.

Bill: Yeah. They were awesome. I’m really surprised because they’re supporting a new album [Living Things] and they hardly played any of the new album.

Jonathan: They played, what, three songs?

Bill: Yeah. They played “Victimized”, “Burn It Down”, and “Lost In The Echo”. That’s it. So, I mean, they played…I think both of them played for 90 minutes.

Jonathan: Really?! It felt like Incubus was much shorter.

Bill: Incubus definitely played for over an hour. Maybe an hour and fifteen. Linkin Park was definitely ninety minutes.

Jonathan: What I loved about Linkin Park’s whole deal was how they built up the set. Like, the actual stage. New things happened every few songs. It was only three quarters through the set before we got the pillars of flame and the raining sparks.

Bill: That was different for them. Last time we saw them they didn’t have all that.

Jonathan: Yeah. And then all the lighting. New lights happened every few songs. It was very cool. And they have a very futuristic look about them, like with the video screen.

Bill: The video screen actually reminded me of Tool!

Jonathan: Some parts, some parts I can see that.

Bill: They had some really weird stuff on there. It was very cool and kinda creepy.

Jonathan: It was much more jagged. Tool is very organic and this was much more computerized.

Bill: But yeah, it was nice. It was a fun show.

Jonathan: I did like the variety of songs Linkin Park picked over their discography.

Bill: Yes. It’s weird hearing songs from Hybrid Theory and realizing that was, like, 12 years ago or 11 years ago or whatever it was.

Jonathan: I was a junior or senior in high school, so it was 2000? 2001? But as a whole, I’d say Linkin Park rocked it.

Bill: Linkin Park was awesome and Incubus was mediocre [laughs].

Got any thoughts/questions/concerns for Jonathan Barkan? Shoot him a message on Twitter or on Twitter!

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading