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.

2012: The Year in Film: "Lawless" Review

Ugh. I'm the worst, you guys. I saw this one weeks ago and just never got around to reviewing it. My apologies, football season + work and so on has just left me in a perpetual state of sleep deprivation and unable to muster the energy to review crazy person arthouse flicks like I've got in the hopper. But let's do it, shall we? We're headed into fall, and with it, Oscar bait, so my movie seeing schedule will likely pick way up and I'd like to be on top of it when I see say, "The Master". (can't wait...) So let's see about "Lawless", shall we?

 

Author/musician/screenwriter/crazy person Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat collaborated on 2005's "The Proposition", which is brutal and pretty much great, so I was excited about this one from first trailer on.  First, sometimes the marketing does a flick absolutely no favors. From watching the trailer and seeing the posters you'd think that this is a bang-bang shoot 'em up featuring hero bootleggers against a corrupt system. And while it's KIND OF that, it's mostly approximately 15 other things. This is no "Goodfellas" or grand crime drama, it's an arthouse flick infinitely more concerned with showing and ruminating than with its narrative or symbolism.  This is a time and a place that echoes today perhaps louder than ever before.. and through the lens of these larger-than-life people we can perhaps glean a thing or two about humanity... isn't that the greater purpose of art, after all?

 

It is the early 1930s in Franklin County, Virginia, in the midst of the Great Depression and Prohibition.  Franklin County, deep in the backwoods of western Virginia, was at one time referred to as "the wettest county in the world" due to the prevalence of bootlegged moonshine and illegal moonshine stills.  Based on a book by the grandson and great-nephew of the main characters, the flick focuses on the three Bondurant brothers, Jack, Forrest and Howard, notable and feared local characters and prolific bootleggers.  The Bondurant brothers, violent, stubborn, oddly principled and fiercely loyal, find themselves pitted against corrupt law enforcement as Franklin County becomes a gangland war zone.   

 

 

 

The good:  this flick looks and sounds great.  The sets, costumes, shots and sounds are all extremely artfully done, and blow away a lot of what you'll find in films with blockbuster-sized budgets.  This cast is extremely talented, with Tom Hardy and Jessica Chastain especially doing simply amazing work.  Hardy may well be the most talented actor under 40 working today, and it will be a damn shame if he doesn't walk away with at least an Oscar nom from this one.  His Forrest Bondurant is a dynamo... simply owning scenes and creating a nuanced and layered character out of whole cloth.  Jason Clarke is underrated and under used and is always, always good.  Guy Pearce and Gary Oldman in supporting roles?  Hot.  In addition, the flick treats its subject matter with respect and dilligence, the rural feel comes off as extremely authentic and gritty, and it doesn't shirk from the brutal violance associated with crime.  There's something beautiful and insane about the fact that it takes two Australians to make the most authentic modern depiction of depression-era 20th century rural America I've seen on film. 

 

The bad: Shia LaBeouf is simply out of his league here.  The role isn't especially flattering and is quite difficult, as a young, foolhardy, brash younger brother comes of age and searches for love, but Tom Hardy has more talent in one of his grunts than Shia has in his entire coked-out body.  It's not entirely Shia's fault... I'm not sure who honestly could have held a candle to Hardy in this one... Gosling, maybe?  But Shia is definitely outshined and out done and comes off as a weak-link.  Considering he's the main character, that's bad.  In addition, just what the shit is going on with Guy Pearce?  I get that he's supposed to be a strange outsider... but how would he rise to his position being THAT strange?  It strains credibility.  The plot is occasionally un-focused and tends to meander without seeming focus or aim.  I understand that it's not a plot-driven film, but at the same time some people (cough, Gary Oldman, cough) are simply criminally under-used while some seemingly unimportant parts and scenes are given too much play.  I don't know if that's an editing issue, a directing issue or a script issue, but it knocks something that could have been a classic down a couple of notches. 

 

In the end, this is a violent, sincere depiction of a fascinating group of people and a story well worth telling.  Come for the beautiful shots and Tom Hardy alone.  Well worth a watch, but unfortunately just a few notches short of true greatness. 

 

7.5/10. 

2012: The Year in Film: "The Dark Knight Rises" Review

So Chris Nolan is unquestionably one of the 2-3 best directors working today. His Batman series is absolutely in the running for the best trilogy in cinematic history. For my money, the list consists of The Godather trilogy, Lord of the Rings, and Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Pretty solid company, and that's a discussion for another day, but my main point is simply that these films are important, not merely as comic book or "genre" films, but as legitimately great works that have value far beyond mere entertainment. In resurrecting arguably the most popular character in all of American fiction and treating him seriously, Nolan changed comic book movies forever,(along with Bryan Singer, no doubt)showing the world that characters from the world of comic books can and should both provide great works of entertainment and be taken seriously doing so. Even if his films weren't tremendous (they are), that alone would be a significant achievement. Combining a filmmaker of Nolan's talent with a cast including such legitimately great talents as Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman, and you're doing great, award-worthy work with a character who not so long ago was participating in nonsense that included benippled suits. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are two of the best films released in the last decade and are among my favorites. (even though I personally think that Batman Begins is underrated and The Dark Knight is overrated, they are still very fine films in the 8.5-9 range) So let's take a look at how the capstone is, shall we?

First, it goes without saying that 1.) you should have watched Batman Begins and the Dark Knight before seeing this movie, and 2.) it will be near impossible for me to review this flick without having at least minor spoilers. I will keep them to a minimum, but it's simply not possible to discuss most flicks and this one in particular using vague platitudes. I will keep big details out. Let's rock.

Following the events of The Dark Knight, where the actions of the Joker took everything to an insane level and drove Harvey Dent to murder and madness, Batman took the fall for Dent's crimes and Bruce hung up the cape and cowl as new tougher crime laws passed in Dent's name were used to crush organized crime in the city.  Batman hasn't been seen in years and Gotham is enjoying a period of peace for the first time in decades while Bruce waits on the sidelines.   Against this backdrop a new, sinister force called simply Bane is rising that threatens to bring Gotham to its knees and forces the Batman back into the game in a new, changed Gotham with some new faces that only make the game more complicated.   Bane's plan?  Simply destroy Bruce Wayne and force Gotham City to tear itself apart.  As an older, rusty Batman faces his biggest challenge yet his survival and the survival of his beloved Gotham are both very much in doubt.   Did that read like the future back of the Blu Ray box? Sure. But I told you I'd be keeping things largely spoiler free..

The good:

• The acting is great, top to bottom.  Just about everybody brings their A game, especially Caine, Hathaway and Hardy.  Bale is very strong and brings an interesting new dimension to the Bruce Wayne/Batman character.  Blog favorite Tom Hardy is tremendous as Bane, bringing a physicality, a competence and a very human menace to the man who represents Batman's biggest challenge.  The fact that he does all of this while most of his face is covered by a mask is remarkable.  Batman's supporting cast of Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon and Michael Caine as Alfred all do what they've done throughout the films in this series, and that's raise the quality of every single scene they are in.  I would argue that Fox, Gordon and Alfred represent Batman's mind, spirit and heart respectfully, but that's a discussion for another day... Caine, especially, does great work in depicting Alfred at his most concerned and paternalistic.  Let me say it, I've been hating on Anne Hathaway as Catwoman since the moment she was cast, but she's tremendous.  Truly a revelation.  I apologize to everyone involved for doubting that she could pull it off.  Let me say that if you didn't like Anne Hathaway before, you'll definitely like her after seeing this flick.   Joseph Gordon Levitt is more than capable as rookie cop John Blake, who has a special interest in Batman.
• Obviously, the filmmaking is tremendous.  The movie looks great, plain and simple, and Nolan has a real filmmaker's eye for knowing how to use atmosphere to build his films.  As we've seen, Batman is a character who can very easily descend into the silly, but Nolan smartly builds a gritty, realistic world in which he drops these otherworldly characters and as a result is able to craft smart dramas that exist in a world that's extremely true to life despite featuring comic book characters. 
• The story: it's clear at this moment that this is a true trilogy with one long, overarching narrative.  Each film, while having a self-contained storyline, is also part of a greater whole, where previous events echo and shape current interactions and events.  This isn't a situation where things happened that are discussed but seem distant, the actions of the characters in prior films are felt and have a real presence in later films.  This is a trilogy with a beginning, middle and end, where each successive chapter builds and expands the story, or legend if you'd prefer, of the larger-than-life Batman.  The scale of this film is unbelievably epic and the stakes much higher than what passed before... a more than fitting end to one of the great stories of our time.

The bad: [note: there isn't very much]

• The opening half hour of the flick or so, while undoubtedly awesome (Bane's introductory scene is great), is rather confusing and sort of all over the place.  I understand that there was a lot of introductory things to get out of the way, but the film opens and you aren't quite sure what the hell is going on.
• It's a BIT too bleak.  Soul-crushingly so.  Now the Dark Knight was a bleak flick as well, and Batman Begins isn't exactly sunny, but this flick is just straight-up deathly serious and super dark.  I'm a pretty dark guy myself, but it was right on the verge of being too much.  3 hours of bleakness is a lot.
• The score, despite me loving the use of the "rise" chant, was a bit much.  It's grinding and intense and a little over the top. 
• I have the same problem I had with The Dark Knight re: henchmen.  Where, exactly, are these murderous thugs finding these obsessively loyal, competent henchmen?  Bane just kills his cronies left and right... why would anyone work for him?

Like I said, the bad is minor compared to what the film does right.  I just didn't want you guys to complain when I didn't drop a 10 spot on you. 



In all, it's dark, it's satisfying, it's epic, it's terrifically done, and if it's not as good as The Dark Knight, that's mainly because the storyline is SO much darker and we don't get the maniacal glee of the Joker for distraction, rather the obsessive destruction of Bane.  If it wasn't the ending we needed, it was certainly what we deserved.  Go see this movie.

9/10