Hit the Road, Max

There are only a few words in the English language that make a film fan's skin crawl. Perhaps the most notable is the term 'sequel', but maybe 'remake' and 'reboot' are also among those that induce a shiver of fear to run down one's spine. But what about a 'revisiting'? This is Mad Max: Fury Road.


In a post-apocalyptic wasteland, it is survival of the fittest and despite his best efforts, Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) ends up being kidnapped by a group of 'War Boys' to become a human blood bag. But when the leader of the War Boys, Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), sends one of his war leaders, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), to Gas Town on a supply run and she betrays him by fleeing with his prize wives, the War Boys are summoned to bring them back. One War Boy, Nux (Nicholas Hoult), brings Max, his new blood bag, along for the ride. With Max fighting to survive and Furiosa fighting to escape, the two join forces in the car chase to end all car chases.

Tom Hardy as Max

In 1979, George Miller created a legend in Max and solidified that status with two more films, fashioning an icon of the post-apocalyptic genre. After a stint in development hell, Fury Road attempts to do the nigh on impossible: to continue building Max's legendary status with a new actor filling his leather, diesel-punk attire. James Bond and Doctor Who were successful with it, so why not Mad Max? Tom Hardy has absolutely no difficulty in immediately capturing Max's essence; his kind nature compromised by a drive to survive and his mind riddled with the guilt from those he could not save. But be clear, this is not Max's film. Fury Road is Furiosa's film. Theron is the driving force of the movie and its emotional core. Her performance grounds an otherwise wild ride into being more than just another mindless action. She gives the film its heart, its soul, and also its bite.

Charlize Theron as Furiosa

The success of Fury Road lies not in its story or performances alone. With Mad Max, George Miller did not just create a character, he created a world - a world that needed rebuilding and adjusting for Fury Road. Here, Miller shows us that the wasteland has got more brutal, more baron, but it is the same landscape as before. The road gangs are now war cults, the shortage is now of water. The production design tells just as much story as the characters or the plot - we see see a vision of the human race reduced to its most primitive and in desperate need to adapt to survive. But director of photography, John Seale, makes it strangely beautiful, leading to some of the most entrancing cinematography of the year. The same too should be said of editor Margaret Sixel. With Seale's centre framing and Sixel's editing, the film, consisting almost entirely of action, became captivating to watch. The audience was drawn into the wasteland and taken on an exhilarating journey.

Incredible stunt coordination with the 'Polecats'

And on that note, it seems absolutely vital to discuss the stunt work that went into creating this film. Action films are defined by the scale of their action and for Fury Road, this scale seems endless. Nothing is done in halves and no type of action takes precedence over another. The hand to hand combat is just as effective as the driving, the ariel work is as thrilling as the explosions. Every element of the action comes together to form a ferocious and entrancing thrill ride through the apocalyptic desert.

Mad Max: Fury Road is, simply put, the most outstanding film of the year. Not only is it excellently made in every aspect, but it is unlike anything else in its genre. It blows away the competition in its own market as well as subverting expectations of action films and firmly making a name for itself amongst the serious award contenders for 2015.

Best Bit? It is rare I say this but the film's standard almost never drops below a certain point. Its consistency is incredible. So don your leather jacket, prepare to enter Valhalla, scream 'What a lovely lovely day!', and watch this movie.

The Great Return

Apologies. I slipped into a movie related coma after the Oscars but the good news is their back on our screen! It's been six years since they released any form of movie (The Wizard of Oz) and 20 years since the last time they had their famous TV show. Finally, with great vision and determination, they return with a post-modern, biographical (sort of), comedy starring themselves. Who am I talking about? Yes, it's The Muppets.

Three Muppet enthusiasts, Gary (Jason Segel), Mary (Amy Adams), and Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), head off to Hollywood to see the Muppet theatre and to celebrate Mary and Gary's tenth anniversary. However, on the tour of the theatre, Walter overhears Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) discussing his plans to buy the theatre and destroy it to get to the oil underneath. In horror, the trio set out to find Kermit and with him, hatch a plan to get the gang back together, raise the $10 million, and return the theatre to its glorious state. They begin to travel around the world in search of the other Muppets and try to find a TV company that will air their telethon. It's a tough time for them though considering they're no longer considered 'popular' and on top of this, Tex Richman is keeping a close eye on them.

When they realised there wasn't enough seatbelts to go around,
The Muppets got scared.

There is very little in terms of human performance here. Jason Segel was absolutely fantastic as Gary. Not only is he absolutely hilarious, he is also so touching and heartfelt when the moment calls for it. Not to mention he can sing and dance like a pro. His voice in Man or Muppet - which won Best Original Song at the Oscars - is natural and raw. It gives me tingles every time. Amy Adams was also a delight in this movie. Her innocence and charm made her perfect for the role of Mary. And we all know she's a wonderful singer because of Enchanted. Finally, Chris Cooper played a mean (if not overdone) baddie. There was several things I disliked about Tex Richman as a character which I don't think was down to Chris Cooper's portrayal; I think it was down to the writers and directors. All the cameos in this movie were fantastic. They were so perfectly inserted with excellent jokes and pure wit.

Our Lord and Saviour... Kermit.

The film was spearheaded by Jason Segel and the promotion of it was fantastic. The world became excited for The Muppets. The film was great fun for all the family. Kids will love it because it’s silly and its protagonists are puppets and adults will love it because it brings The Muppets back to the screen with plenty of clever jokes and meta-humour. The script, while at parts dipped in quality and dragged a little, was mostly true to The Muppets style with a typical ‘good vs evil’ plot and silly comedy mixed with well thought out jokes. The songs in the movie were fantastic – probably the best parts of the movie – and were all worthy of an Oscar nomination (though Man or Muppet rightfully won.)

I find The Muppets sense of humour hilarious. Things like travelling by map or the line ‘They must have got broken in the dance number I was just doing,’ just make the movie that little bit better for me. Also, if you know me, you’ll know I’m a fool for singing and dancing, especially songs as good as the ones in The Muppets. I would definitely suggest this movie to people. It’s just plain good fun.

Best Bit? Man or Muppet was a definite highlight for me due to my love of songs, puppets and Jason Segel. I also very much enjoyed the post modern collection of the rest of The Muppets.

News, Updates and Anger

Hi everyone. I'm taking a brief break from my coursework to give you a quick update. I promise, come the weekend, I'll start blogging loads again. Work will be out of the way and I'll have a lot more time.

However, in the world of movies, we have lots of news. Of course, there's always news in the world of film, but there's interesting news. Two interesting movies have come to my attention recently. The first is a sequel to Liam Neeson's Taken. At the moment it is simply called Taken 2. Is it real? If so, I'm very excited. Taken was a fine bit of pointless action and I enjoyed every moment of it. If the sequel is just as badass and awesome, we may see one of the best sequels ever. However, I am curious as to what the plot will be. Surely his daughter isn't foolish enough to get kidnapped twice? Perhaps he just goes crazy and decides to kick some drug dealing, girl stealing, unappealing gangster ass.

The second movie is one that, to me, sounds like the best concept for a while. I mean, Cowboys vs Aliens is a great concept, but does this trump it? It's called Cockneys VS Zombies. I mean come on. A load of bank robbers fighting Zombies? My immediate issue is that I assume people will compare it to Shaun Of The Dead. Despite the incredibly amusing concept, whether the film will be any good or not is yet to be seen. We shall find out next year.

Are you sure nobody has made Cockneys VS Zombies before?

Now let's talk about the year 2013. If the world hasn't ended then we are surely in for an interesting year. Due to two films. Firstly, Monsters University. The prequel to PIXAR's Monsters inc. Now, I'm very interested to see a PIXAR prequel. Toy Story had two sequels and Cars 2 is a sequel, so the very premise is something PIXAR haven't tried before. I love all the characters from Monsters inc and I'd love to see some new ones. Once again, I'm interested what the plot will be. Where will the conflict come from. Surely they can't use a child again?

You may have noticed the title of this post says Anger. And here it is: in 2013, Warner Brothers have proposed that Batman will be rebooted again. A year after the third and final movie from Christopher Nolan. It is in the purpose of having a slightly less realistic Batman for the Justice League, which seems like a stupid movie on its own. Christopher Nolan and Emma Thompson will be producing and looking at evidence of how Nolan is producing Superman, there is still a glimmer of hope for the movie. Despite this glimmer, I want Batman to be left alone. He's had a comedy series, an animated series, a set of movies that were accurate to the comics, a set of movies that were gritty and realistic and now they want to put him in a movie with The Green Lantern and Superman?

I don't want the Justice League. I don't want The Avengers. I want superhero movies to stand by themselves without crossing into other ones. I also want some originality in movies. Stop rebooting Batman, Spiderman, Superman and X-Men and make some new movies.

Like Taken. That movie was awesome.

Talking of Batman, you probably know by know, but the third movie will be called The Dark Knight Rises. Supposedly. Three 'Villains' have been named. Tom Hardy will be super strong, super smart Bane. Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be Alberto Falcone (The main suspect behind the 'holiday killings' in the comics) and Anne Hathaway is Selina Kyle (NOTE: they never say Catwoman. this may or may not be of importance. You know what Christopher Nolan is like.) Many more rumours fly around but that's all we have for now.

A final word from me. I eagerly await news on the Timecrimes American remake. I love the original and expect a huge post about it when they finally release details.

Stick around next week for reviews on:

• Paul


• Tangled


• Unstoppable


• Rebel Without Cause


• Bolt


• Hot Tub Time Machine


• And more :)

Things On My Mind Now.

No Batman 3 this time. (Though I may talk about Christopher Nolan's Superman reboot.)

Firstly, two remakes of brilliant foreign films. I'm not sure why Hollywood has to remake these remarkable films though I suspect ti has something to do with people being too lazy to read subtitles. Timecrimes (Los Cronocrimenes) is set to be remade for 2011 with Tom Cruise strongly linked to it. As you know by reading previous posts, I adore this film. Timecrimes is an amazing creation, innovative and clever. I really worry that it will loose the things that make it great with an American remake. The simplicity, the slightly porky everyman protagonist, the point.
Also another film I am in love with, Let The Right One In. I reviewed this a little while back and boy is it stunning. I certainly have more faith in this than in Timecrimes. Mainly because of the awesome casting. Kick ass' Chloe Mortez and The Road's Kodi Smit-McPhee as our protagonists; sounds good. I still can't believe it would be as magnificent as the original but I hope for a good turn out. Also it will be called Let Me In.

Also, director Christopher Nolan has bounced around my mind a lot in the last few hours. His stunning take on Batman has left millions comparing him to Kubrick or Hitchcock. Others may know him from The Prestige or Insomnia but everyone will soon know him from one of his three upcoming movies: Batman 3, Superman and Inception. He has claimed that he will focus on Superman's character to create the world around him. Thats how he created his gothic Gotham. So what is Superman's character? Strong, powerful and mighty. He's also a lovely chap... Perhaps less of the grouchy need-a-soother voice from Batman.

Inception being the most expected film of the year (coming out July 16th) I advice everyone to see it. That's all I have to say about that.

Anyway that's all from me :)

Stay tuned for reviews on North By Northwest, 17 Again, Mean Machine, A Few Dollars More, Iron Man 2, The Notebook and The Good The Bad The Wierd.

Peace out ya hear!

Wanna Go To An All Girl School?

A friend of mine didn't know any of the films I was reviewing and asked if I would review one she did. So here we go.

St Trinians.

Now when reviewing 'Whip It' I said everything that shouldn't work did. This is the oppisite. Everything that shouldn't work didn't.

Firstly the plot was completely ridiculous, though admitidly it was meant to be, and I found myself unable to comprehend what was going on. A plot can be ridiculous but still work just fine. Such films like Being John Malkovich but this one didn't. It never came to life because it refused to be real and ridiculous.

This may of course be down to the acting. I'll start with the good point; Russell Brand was pretty good and funny. Now the rest but before I complain too much i would like to point out that the bad acting maybe because directors Oliver Parker and Barnaby Thompson have no idea about teen stereotypes. The emos are goths, the chavs are chavy for one scene then become normal and the geeks are popular! Now thats just silly right? Our protagonist, Annabelle (played by Talulah Riley) actually has some acting chops but they're only shown a little and I blame the directors for holding her back and giving her character a huuuuuuuggee change of heart so quickly, not a gradual build up to an alliance with the others.

Look at me. I'm an emo... Wait... Am I?

Now addmitedly there was just a sheer lack of brilliance in this film but it wasn't a disaster. Its a silly film that young kids will enjoy and their parents will enjoy if they watched the original St Trinians from the 60's... Bringing back memories and full of in-jokes. They also won't understand the mess up with the stereotypes because its after their time.

But this film just didn't grasp me. It wasn't funny, nor was it thoughtful or clever. It was just a bit silly and another unneeded reboot of a classic franchise. If you wanna kill a couple of hours but don't want to think too much, watch Anchorman or Little Miss Sunshine... Something fun and good.

Best Bit? The Hockey Game.. Bout the only funny bit.