2015: The Year in Film: "Mad Max: Fury Road" Review

So, as a bit of a preliminary discussion to reviewing this awesome, adrenaline-filled flick... I'm not overly familiar with Mad Max and the mythology of the character. I've seen The Road Warrior, but it's been a long time, and I've watched Beyond Thunderdome on cable, but I can't say that I have a working knowledge about either. The Road Warrior is pretty awesome in an early 80's kind of way, and young Mel Gibson was an incredibly charismatic dude, but it's undoubtedly cheesy to a modern audience. To make a long story short, society has fallen into disarray due to a shortage of resources and resulting war. Max was once a lawman of sorts who lost his family and humanity in the chaos, and is now a lone wolf badass who roams the irradiated wasteland.

But, I want to talk about the state of filmmaking today in a minor digression from my typical movie reviews. When I think about the films in recent years that are the craziest, that push the envelope the most and have a unique voice and vision, Wolf of Wall Street and this one are two of the foremost in my mind. Why is it that we, as a generation, as a society, are fixated upon imitating and paying homage to what Scorsese and George Miller did 30+ years ago while those septuagenarians are creating kinetic, innovative, envelope-pushing and occasionally shocking art?  I can only hope that the lessons that we learn from legends are to take chances and CREATE instead of paying homage. (Here's looking at you, David O. Russell)

So, enter, Mad Max: Fury Road, which appears to exist within the same continuity as the other Mad Max films although the timeline isn't made explicitly clear. It is clear, however, that society is even farther gone, with there being almost no memory or semblance of the world before the fall remaining. Max is the lone figure in the wilderness, haunted by what was and his perceived failures, when he's captured by a roaming band of "war boys" who bring him back to their citadel. Here we see that a figure named Immortan Joe rules over a sort of rough feudal state with an absolute and iron fist - and Max becomes a forced blood bank for his sickly soldiers before fate would have him join up with a band of revolutionaries.

The Good: quite simply, this is maybe the most insane action movie of all time. It's certainly the most insane one I've ever seen. The action is nonstop and dialed up to an intensity that's only seen in spurts in flicks that would ordinarily compete for this title. (see: everything Michael Bay has ever done, the Fast & Furious series, Crank, etc.) But it's not just the intense and over the top action that's the draw, it's the artful and hauntingly beautiful way in which its shot. Amidst scenes of high-octane chaos there are sweeping shots of the desolate landscape that really lend the film an epic, larger than life feel. Additionally, there's very little CGI here, and the practical effects really give the film a tangible, grounded brutality that is miles away from the robot destruction found in say, the Transformers series. The world Miller has created is at once completely recognizable (the "war boys" are obsessed with cars and chrome, and do battle to massive guitar solos) and horrifically foreign, and this attention to detail really lends the in-film universe an authenticity that emerges without the need for endless exposition. The first 40 minutes or so is maybe the most intense 40 minutes of any action movie in the history of film, and really has an insanely kinetic feel to it... the theater let out a collective sigh once the first extended action scene drew to a close.  But more than just mindless action, this is a film with a lot to say. A message of hope, of equality, of perseverance and an oddly feminist message emerges from the nonstop chase, and really gives this film a thoughtful core to go along with the insane action sequences. The cast, especially Hardy and Charlize Theron, rise to the task of carrying a film with almost no dialogue as well. Hardy's Max is practically non-vocal for much of the film, communicating mainly through grunts and body language, and in the hands of a less talented and charismatic actor Max would have felt like an empty suit. Hardy makes it work, and Charlize Theron, who has managed to turn herself into just maybe the best actress working today under the age of Meryl Streep, is every bit as good as the rebellious Furiosa. Rising star Nicholas Hoult really sells out as "war boy" Nux and turns in a memorable performance as well.



The Bad: there isn't much to complain about here - but if there's anything, it's that the sparse dialogue, lack of a voiceover outside of the opening scene and constant, balls to the wall action doesn't leave much room for character development. It works in the context of the film - these are damaged, broken people in a damaged, broken world, but it runs dangerously close to making it hard to relate to the people involved.

In all, this is a unique, fresh, truly insane take on the overcrowded "post-apocalypse" flick. One of the original masters has come back to show us all how it's done, and delivered one of the most intense, heart-pounding action flicks in the history of film in the process. See this one, you won't regret it.

9/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Avengers: Age of Ultron" Review

So, if you're new to this blog and/or the idea of me, let me inform you: I'm a Marvel nerd and have been since at least 1990. I'm a Joss Whedon nerd. (I have a "Firefly" art print hanging in my living room) The first Avengers is one of my favorite movies and I feel one of the more watchable flicks of recent years. So, I'm pretty much this flick's target audience. If you don't like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (in which case, quit being such a spoilsport), Joss Whedon, or the first Avengers, you should bear what I just told you in mind while reading this review, and my review of all things Marvel. ("Daredevil" is awesome too guys!)

So, the Marvel Universe is one of the great successful experiments of our time. They've managed to, through 11 movies now and counting, (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Thor, Thor 2, Captain America, Captain America 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers) create what we would have thought just 10 years ago was impossible - a cohesive comic book-style universe through a number of related and interconnecting movies. They've done this by hiring a number of talented filmmakers and by hitting home runs with all of their casting decisions. (they grabbed Robert Downey Jr. off of the scrap heap and turned him into the biggest movie star on the planet) Above all, they've done it through a commitment to quality. Even the worst Marvel movies (looking at you, Iron Man 2 and Thor) are better than your average superhero fare, and they remain pretty darn watchable, despite their flaws.

Enter: Avengers: Age of Ultron. We're shown that our heroes have been kicking ass and taking names off-screen since their last adventure, as they are clearly much more of a team now than they ever were in their first go-around. The Avengers are hunting Hydra and searching for Loki's staff around the globe as they strive to keep the world safe.

The Good: Marvel can make these movies in their sleep at this point, and Joss knows how to write his way around an ensemble. The leads are so charismatic, RDJ and Evans in particular, and the characters so well-established and rounded after multiple movies that everything just sort of rounds into place. New characters are effectively introduced (Vision is especially memorable) while existing characters continue to have their development moved forward. (except for Thor, who really gets the shaft in both Avengers movies) The film's villain, Ultron, an evil artificial intelligence voiced by James Spader, is a better villain than most of Marvel's villains up to this point, and Spader fleshes out Ultron with a gleeful menace that really brings a sense of desperation to the plot. The action sequences are impressive, and the presence of a menacing villain really ups the stakes. (Let's be real, as fun as Loki is, he was never a match for the Avengers once they got together) This film is darker than any Marvel film to date - but still manages to poke Zack Snyder and DC in the eye by having the Avengers go out of their way to save as many civilians as possible.



The Bad: This flick is totally and utterly overstuffed and you can tell significant cuts were made in spots to keep the runtime manageable. As a result, parts of the film feel rushed and the plot jumps around in spots. I blame Iron Man 3, and here's why: Ultron is created by Tony Stark in an effort to keep the world safe. That's KIND OF what the plot of Iron Man 3 was, but it's also not, really... and Stark developing AI that would ultimately become Ultron would have 1.) made Iron Man 3 all the better in the grand scheme of the MCU and 2.) meant that this flick wouldn't have needed so much background to create its villain. Since the first third of the film is setting up Ultron, the rest of the plot (introducing new Avengers, saving the world, etc.) feels rushed and under-served, and there just isn't enough of the meaty part of the film. Somewhere there's a 3 hr. plus director's cut of this film, and that's the one I want to see. Additionally, this flick kind of feels like a placeholder. It doesn't significantly advance the "infinity gem" storyline that had gained so much momentum through Thor 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy and as a result it feels like it's Marvel treading water before the main event comes in a few years.

Ultimately, this is a well-done, fun, quality, if flawed, addition to the Marvel Universe. It's not the crowning achievement that its predecessor was, but that would have made Joss Whedon an all-time legend, so I'm happy with what it is - a fun time at the movies with a lot of fun characters, cool moments and quality actors. As a Marvel superfan, I'm happy, but not thrilled.

8/10.

2015: The Year in Film: "Whiplash" Review

Yes. Late.

So, there are movies galore released every year, but the vast majority of these fall into safe, reliable categories. Action. Horror. Romantic Comedy. Period Piece. Indie "dramedy". Biopic. So on and so forth. What there seems to be a dearth of in today's movie landscape, particularly since the writer's strike of 5 or so years ago, are truly unique and original films that exist for a purpose. Films with something to say beyond "inspiring" are sadly few and far between.

Enter: Whiplash. First time director Damien Chazelle (He's younger than I am. I hate him.) wrote and directed this look at a drummer in a fictional elite music conservatory and his pursuit of musical excellence. I know, that sounds incredibly dull and like bait for the NPR crowd, but would you believe me if I told you that this film was one of the more kinetic and exciting films of the year?

The Good: This film is incredibly small in scope - 99% of the screentime is occupied by the two leads, and in the capable hands of J.K Simmons (heretofore most recognizable as the guy from those insurance commercials and the dad from Juno) and Miles Simmons (he'll be playing Reed Richards in the Fantastic Four reboot this summer, guys) the quasi-abusive, quasi-fatherly relationship between Andrew and Dr. Terrance Fletcher becomes something great. Not unlike a jazz ensemble, the two feed off of one another, with Simmons bringing an intense physical presence and Teller matching his manic energy nearly step for step. The film is shot and plays like a thriller - with the performance scenes possessing a thrilling, kinetic feel that's unlike anything I can recall in recent years. Simmons' Fletcher is a sadistic bastard, but he's a charming, if maniacal one, and you simply can't keep your eyes off of him. His Best Supporting Actor award was certainly most deserved. Teller nearly matches him - and even though Andrew is a little bit of a prick, you find yourself rooting for the guy.



The Bad: there isn't much, truly, but the film does suffer slightly from its laser-sharp focus. You never get the idea that any of these people actually LIKE music. Maybe that's accurate from a music conservatory - lord knows I wouldn't have the slightest idea, but from what I know about jazz, I'm not sure that rote memorization is quite the route to excellence. That's a piddly critique, though. This film is great, even if Fletcher is occasionally hard to watch.

In all, this isn't just one of the best movies of the last few years, it's a perfect example of why movies have such value as an art form and storytelling medium. Through the power of film, we're able to experience a story about a jazz drummer that plays like a terse crime thriller.... and that's amazing. Come for the performances, stay for the kinetic film-making.

9.5/10