WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS; Full-Tilt Review

(on the subject of feeding from virgins)
“I think of it like this. If you are going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew no one had fucked it.”

Vadislav

Just your average vampires... Sort of.

Synopsis:

A small group of Vampires living in Wellington New Zealand agree to be followed by a team of documentary film-makers. Instead of establishing themselves as the dominant terror of the night, they only illustrate how out-of-touch they are with the world around them. Things are further complicated when, to help them connect more successfully with modern life, one of the Vampires decides to add to their number by turning an outsider into one of their undead clan. Shame that the 'new-blood' happens to be arguably the most arrogant and dim witted man in all of Wellington...

Script: 1/2

A format where the documentary style feels like a natural aspect of the story and simply not shoe-horned in for budgetary constraints (as it usually is). For every 4 jokes that misfire there's a real gem, that's pretty good odds.

Pace: 1/2
Perhaps a direct result of it's budget and indie nature, but the film does feel (at best) meandering. It's almost as though the story isn't quite sure what ending it's heading towards.

Acting: 2/2
For what it is, a surreal comedy, all stars hit their stride. Jemaine Clement steals the show as the barbaric and over-sexed Vladislav, while Taika Waititi is endearing as the foppish Viago- also the main narrator of the documentary. Jonny Brugh is also entertainingly embittered as an ex Nazi experiment turned punk.

Aesthetic: 1/2
It's a cheap movie but the budget is well-used and thankfully required little else other than for it's stars to show up in costume and bicker.

Intention: 2/2
A little too mellow to be true slapstick, and a little to daft to be anything approaching genuine horror, What We Do In The Shadows is far from a masterpiece but endearing in it's eclectic sense of humor and boasts nerd-appeal aplenty with it's innocent flaws and quotable dialogue.

Final Word: 7/10

Bought to you by the minds behind Flight of the Conchords, it's a bizarre sit-com in the tried-and-tested 'outsiders' / 'odd couple' mold. Think something like The Big Bang Theory meets Dracula Dead and Loving It and you're on the right lines. Sort of...

DEADPOOL: Full-Tilt Review

“You're probably thinking, 'My boyfriend said this was a superhero movie but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fucking kabab!' Well, I may be super, but I'm no hero. And yeah, technically, this is a murder...”

Wade Wilson

Deadpool plays out like Punisher by way of Southpark, which is no bad thing...

Synopsis:

Wade Wilson is a down-on-is-luck ex-mercenary who finds love with the equally plucky prostitute Vanessa. But a 'happy ever after' seems off the cards when Wade is diagnosed with untreatable Cancer. However, when Wade is approached by a shady organisation that agrees to 'cure' his condition in return for him becoming a 'super hero' he reluctantly agrees... However, all is not as it seems, and Wade soon releases his saviors are actually using him and others like him as test-rats under torturous conditions. He escapes the confines of his prison, now hideously scarred but almost indestructible, and dedicates his life to hunting the man responsible and watching over Vanessa.

Script: 1/2

There can be no disguising the by-the-numbers plot format.

Pace: 2/2

The film starts off at a run (with the jokes as well as the violence) and doesn't let up.

Acting: 1/2

There's good, there's bad, and then there's Ryan Reynolds...

Aesthetic: 2/2

A good-looking film all round, cast and production.

Intention: 1/2

While it does feel like a cynical production, there's no denying it's a fun ride.

Final Word: 7/10

So, the first thing that struck me was just how many jokes the films throws at the audience. They literally start with the credits and come thick-and-fast till the film closes. While some of these may fall a little flat, the sheer number of them means you're never far from another chuckle. It has to be said though, some of the gags are much smarter than others; for every one genuinely intelligent joke there's probably another 4 or 5 that, how best to put it, are slightly more juvenile. That said, somehow even the bluer and more swear-tastic moments of the film still managed to retain some charm, including but not exclusive to a debauched “my God, can they say that?” verbal sparring of astonishing perversity when Wade and Vanessa first meet. I laughed despite myself... Which leads me onto Ryan Reynolds. Now, I say this as someone who can't exactly claim to be Reynold's biggest fan, but, this is truly the role he was born for; the jokes simply wouldn't work without his boyish blue-eyes and cheeky smile, and his willingness to send himself up at any given opportunity is second to none. Put simply, without Reynolds nothing in the film would hold together- the film owes it's success to him and him alone. Sure, he may not have written the jokes, put together the screen play, or directed the film, but actually, when considered separately, most of the jokes aren't all that great, while the screenplay, while it has the odd little flourish here and there (covered later) it's nothing all that special, and the directing in the film is so unobtrusive as to be missing entirely. And while I can't necessarily fault Reynolds here, I can't exactly call it a master class in acting either, since regardless of how fun he is, you feel he's pretty much just playing a more high-octane version of himself. Morena Baccarin on the other hand (who some eagle-eyed viewers may have spotted from Serenity / Firefly) as Vanessa, the love interest, is equal parts sweet and sultry in a nothing-but-by-God-I'm-gonn'-make-something-of-it type role, while T. J. Miller gets some decidedly snarky deadpan moments as Wade's sort-of-not friend. What let's the side down here in fairly spectacular fashion is the “English villain” of the piece, Ed Skrein, here playing a character named Ajax, possibly the most unlikely mad-scientist to have ever graced the silver screen. Even when Ed loses the science shtick and reveals himself as a muscular assassin, he's never fearsome (or memorable) enough to be truly frightening or hate-worthy, and it's not like the character didn't have enough chances to make something of himself. All in all, a poorly played part, and poorly written- it's not like that character didn't have enough opportunities to do something memorably nasty- considering he passes up an opportunity to torture Wade's captive friend in retaliation for the hero's continued disobedience, or obliterate a bar-full of his mercenary chums... On the subject of writing, while the plot is fairly standard, the film was at it's most dementedly creative through the first half, with narrative skipping gamely between the past (setting up the back-story) and the present (an action scene seeing Wilson/Deadpool battling Ajax and his cronies)- such a shame that the film ditches the format too soon. And while I appreciate the film makes it's fair share of jokes at the expense of the by-numbers plot, it's not simply enough to point out the contrivances and cliches, the real skill is in doing so while subverting them- a trick Deadpool never fully manages to realise. What you're left with is a film that wants to be Kickass, but couldn't quite make itself quite as subversive, anarchic, witty or heartfelt. Perhaps a better comparison would be South Park, especially in relation to the tone of most of the jokes, which are certainly more vulgar than anything in Kickass. Still, a ballsy attempt at greatness at any rate, especially when you consider how safe big-name studios like 20^th Century Fox usually like to play things. In fact, by pure association with 20th Century Fox, some of the jokes at the expense of the X-Men franchise come across as more cynical rather than sincere, trying too hard to play off past failures; “hey kids, we know we screwed up Wolverine Origins, but we can joke about it because we're, like, totally rock and roll!”. So, Kickass this may not be, but it's still diverting fun wile it lasts. Perhaps Colossus sums the tone of the film up the most astutely;

“I've given Deadpool every chance to join us but he'd rather act like a child. A heavily armed child.”

Colossus

GINGER SNAPS; Full-Tilt Review

"Are you sure it's just cramps?"

Brigitte

"Just so you know... the words 'just' and 'cramps', they don't go together."

Ginger 

The sisters Fitzgerald: poster children for outcast high-school types everywhere.

Synopsis:

Brigitte and Ginger Fitzgerald are teenage sisters who find themselves at odds with the popular fads and kids at school. While planning a revenge prank against one of their tormentors, Ginger's period attracts the attention of a strange beast lurking in the nearby woods. The Fitzgeralds escape when the thing is killed in a road accident, but not before Ginger is bitten. That's when things gets even stranger, as Ginger finds her body slowly transforming and develops a taste for human flesh. It's up to her loyal sister, Bridgette, to keep these alarming traits hidden from family and peers while searching for a cure to the transformation before it's too late.

Script: 2/2 - sharp and humorously caustic dialogue

Pace: 1/2 - a lull here and there but otherwise OK

Acting: 1/2 - the leads excel, but most of the supporting cast is poor

Aesthetic: 1/2 - the prosthetics are fun, but the 'creature effects' leave a lot to be desired

Intention: 2/2 - a quirky indie-horror-comedy around a novel premise

Final Word: 7/10

Despite drawing controversy during it's filming for it's unfortunate coinciding with the Columbine High School massacre and the Myers High School shooting, this indie Canadian film has none the less gone on to develop a die-hard cult following and spawning 2 sequels.
The idea of juxtaposing menstruation with the werewolf genre seems like such a natural fit, it's hard to believe this hadn't been done before. Combining this novel conceit with a post-Scream snarky-teen sensibility (long before that got over-done), Ginger Snaps is a film that serves up a satisfying dose of satire, horror and pitch-dark laughs- despite the limitations of a shoe-string budget.
But aside from a fresh idea and some excellent dialogue, the film owes it's success entirely to its two leads; Emily Perkins as Brigitte, the younger and meeker of the two sisters, and Katharine Isabelle as Ginger. Their relationship wholly convinces, and it's with genuine regret audiences witness the divide between them widening. Tensions mount as Ginger succumbs to her growing feral nature while Bridgett is forced out from her older sister's protective shadow- the two moving fatefully and tragically toward an inevitable confrontation.
In a world full of rehashed ideas, play-it-safes and creative-process-by-majority-vote, Ginger Snaps can stand proud of its achievments. Overlook some shoddy effects and sub-par TV acting, and what you have here is a gem of a film with indie-spunk in spades.

BUBBA HO-TEP; Full-Tilt Review

"Ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home."

Elvis 

Elvis is the main character, only as a hero, and not a pervert who manipulated little girls.

 

Synopsis:


Based on a short story by cult writer Joe R Lansdale and bought to the screen by cult director Don CosCarelli (he of Phantasm fame), what we have here is very 'cult'... In a nutshell, two residents of an East Texas retirement home, one of whom believes he's Elvis while the other (a black man) thinks he's JFK, must put aside their differences to combat a soul-sucking Egyptian mummy who preys upon the elderly and in-firmed. Honest, that's the plot.

Script: 2/2 - funny yet poignant

Pace: 1/2 - laid-back but never dull

Acting: 1/2 - hit and miss

Aesthetic: 1/2 - makes good use of a shoe-string budget

Intention: 2/2 - a heartfelt, off-beat, buddy-movie horror comedy

Final Word: 7/10

Now, the setup may sound like a comedy that derives cheap laughs from the fact its central characters probably have Dementia, yet the subject is dealt with a surprising amount of affection, and rather than ever poke fun at such a cruel disease, this merely serves as a way of bringing together two lovably bizarre characters. The result is the baffllingly affectionate team-up ever put to film, and what follows is the most relaxingly paced supernatural investigation this side of Scooby-Do. 
Bruce Campbell excels as the old-timer convinced he's Elvis (believing he swapped identities with an impersonator to escape the limelight), and while his acting may skew occasionally into impersonation rather than acting, he is never less than completely entertaining. He gets a fine sidekick from Ossie Davis as a lovably kooky 'JFK' (dyed black after a failed assassination, obviously). Sadly the side is let down by some less than convincing supporting thesps, but thankfully this never takes the shine off the movie. 
It's a surreal experience, that's to be sure, but a film that's definitely worth a look- love it or hate it, you won't have seen anything quite like it before.

300; Full-Tilt Review

"A thousand nations of the Persian empire will descend upon you. Our arrows will blot out the sun!"

Persian Commander 

"Then we will fight in the shade."

Stelios 

In Ancient Greece, as you well know, everybody worked out at the gym and soaked their biceps in oils.

Synopsis: 

The time is 480 BC, and the small city-state of Sparta comes under threat from the mighty Persian Empire. The ultimatum is simple, "join us or die", but despite overwhelming odds the Spartan King Leonidas will not submit. Instead, he leads 300 of his finest warriors to defend his homeland against the immeasurable invading hoard. 

Script: 1/2 - does the job.

 

Pace: 2/2 - never a dull moment.

 

Acting: 1/2 - better than what you'd expect in a film like this.

 

Aesthetic: 1/2 - stylish, but cheap-looking in places.

 

Intention: 2/2 - the slow-motion blood-and-sandal fantasy film to end them all!

Final Score: 7/10

Based (rather loosely) on a real historical battle, and adapted from the popular graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller.

Worth noting here, 300 is the polar opposite of the film Troy- and both would make for an interesting double feature- where as Troy took a war which may never have actually happened and treated it with as much realism as could be credible, 300 took a real conflict and treated it as though it were a myth. The results are rather intriguing. Another interesting aspect to consider (a concept subsequently lost in the awful sequel) is that of the 'unreliable narrator'; the film is structured in such a way that Dilios (spoiler: the soul surviving member of the the 300) is telling his story to inspire the warriors of Sparta in battle. Included in his tale are events and introspection that would not be known to him, such as the brave last stand, or exchanges between the King and his Queen. So, one might presume that the monstrousness of their enemies and the superhuman feats of his comrades have also been exaggerated? 

Either way, whether you agree with such hypothetical pondering or not, 300 is a still a very entertaining watch. The cast, including a pre-fame Michael Fassbender, Gerard Butler, Dominic West and Lena Headey, all bring a surprising amount of depth to bare on the material, considering how little time they have between the bloody battle scenes. 300's show-stopping slow-motion technique has been much overused in the years since it's release (including by the film's own director Zack Snyder, who has seemingly gone on to make this his raison d'etre), but here the technique is put to good effect, perhaps a shrewd move or by happy accident; the violence almost coming to a complete stop mid-action feels like a comic book panel made real. 

Many critics got a bit 'sniffy' with 300 on it's release. Most of them gave luke-warm reviews, praising the style but putting the boot into the content, but a few critics of the bleeding-heart variety roasted the film over it's (apparently) "disgusting political content" (homosexuals are evil, the disabled are treacherous, foreigners are tyrants, Caucasians are good, etc). I personally feel they were reading way too much into it; at the end of the day 300 is a comic book adaption, a superhero film. It's probably not meant as a reflection on real-world issues: this is half naked men with swords fighting monsters. I'd be worried if you felt like living your life by this scenario...

MACBETH: Carlisle's Final Word

 "...They say blood will have blood."

Macbeth 

Macbeth... Surprisingly light on laughs.

SYNOPSIS:
Justin Kurzel,  the serious-minded director of Snowtown, helms this latest adaption of the bleak Shakespeare play. Macbeth, a loyal captain (or "Thain") to the King of Scotland,  presently locked in a bloody war against traitorous factions. It is during the heat of one of these viscous battles that Macbeth is visited by three witches, who reveal a prophesy to Macbeth that he will seize the crown of Scotland. Driven by this eerie revelation, and further goaded by his ambitious wife, Macbeth descends into a perilous spiral of greed, madness and ruthless betrayal.

SCRIPT: 1/2
To the best of my knowledge this adaption of Shakespeare's work is perfectly faithful while still allowing for a unique breadth of vision. While the story and it's outcome may be known to many by now, Macbeth is not necessarily a story building to an unexpected climax. Rather, even as a newcomer to the material, it is clear that Macbeth's efforts, in the best traditions of 'self-fulfilling prophesies', will eventually lead to his downfall, and as an audience we are encouraged to witness the man essentially build his own gallows. In this respect the script is as solid, and the experience will not be ruined by anyone being too familiar with the story.
Any reservations I have regarding the script probably relate more to Shakespeare's writing than with anybody involved in the film itself. Perhaps a sign of its time, I found some of the exchanges stilted and plodding. Perhaps in the arena of hyper-drama that is 'the stage' these moments are more fitting, but in the cold realism of the film's setting, and delivered in such a way by the movie's cast as to feel 'real', this only highlights the enormity of the void between 'stage art' and film. What's left is a dreamlike experience, where the unreal and the unfeasible are treated with grim-faced mundanity.

PACE: 1/2
The story of Macbeth, when all is said and done, is quite a simple and direct fable, with a very clear arc for the characters, moving towards its inevitable conclusion. While the film never felt overly long, it did at times move at what I consider to be a rather indulgent pace. The sheer number of silent and lingering shots of barren landscapes and scowling close-ups probably add to this sensation; all these shots are good for establishing character and atmosphere, but by the half-way point hardly seem necessary, and their inclusion feels more for the sake of aesthetic than any storytelling device. Art for its own sake is fair enough, but it does come at a price to the pace. Dirge-like would seem a fitting description as any to describe this pace, and put me in mind of the western classic Once Upon a Time in the West, in as much as I was more aware I'd seen a great deal of nothing only after the film had ended.

ACTING: 2/2
Michael Fassbender (who at present does seem to be in everything, right?) once again proves his acting credentials are well deserved. His role as the ill-fated Macbeth suits his somber and weathered features, and he's never less than a charismatic screen presence- much needed when his character is the villain of the story, the audience certainly won't be rooting for him. Magnetism compensates for the support a more sympathetic character would receive... Marion Cotillard is also on fine thespian form as Macbeth's wife, an opportunist manipulator who, much too late, realises she has created a monster. David Thewlis (fresh from an equally small but pivotal role in Legend) and Paddy Considine (one of Britain's unsung acting heavyweights) give excellent support as the doomed King and Macbeth's closest friend respectively. Only Sean Harris, here playing Macduff, a character who's destiny is fatefully entwined with Macbeth's own, hits what feels like a 'wrong note'- but I can only fault this subjectively; personally I found Harris' Macduff (a character who should have the audience's full support come the violent climax) strangely removed and hard to like. Still, Harris plays the part convincingly.
Like I said before, to their credit all the cast play their parts straight- camp posturing and stage theatricality are left by the wayside, lending the film an oddly engaging surrealism.

AESTHETIC: 2/2
I can't stress this enough; Macbeth is a stunningly beautiful film. You only have to watch the trailer, or view some of the stills, to get a sense of what to expect. Every single frame is lighted and arranged on the screen like a work of gallery art. It's in this respect, more than any other, that Macbeth is worthy of your consideration. Not since Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula has a film ever been so lovingly and artistically staged. Scotland has never on screen been so rugged, inhospitable or as elegant (and as Game of Thrones did for Ireland, I expect Macbeth will do for the Isle of Skye). The soundtrack is also pitch-perfect; a pulsating and foreboding thrumming which compliments the sparse and imposing visuals.
There's an argument to be made here that it's the films awe-inspiring visual vitality that makes what is otherwise a familiar tale, in a world already chock-full of remakes and reboots, worth another screen interpretation. Because, without this very striking identity, the tale of Macbeth is essentially the same as it always has been... Perhaps more present day reboots could learn a lesson from this?
While it could hardly be considered a miss-step, I do consider some of the aesthetic choices in the costume department quite strange, and found (not from a particularly well informed viewpoint, granted) that some of the outfits, as well as the style of the combat, were more reminiscent of Persian cultures rather than Scottish. For example, a distinct lack of shields are present on the battlefield, despite a couple of the bard's lines which refer to their presence. Still, the film is never less than striking...

INTENTION: 1/2
Why the director or cast felt we needed another Macbeth, I'm not sure. People are all too quick to bemoan a rebooting of a superhero franchise or other pop-culture icon (such as Robocop, John McClain or Indiana Jones), but are far more accepting of the dusting-off of a Shakespeare play. Does a classic heritage exclude this 'remake' from criticism, a tenancy to view culture with a more forgiving eye? After all, how many times has Macbeth been retold on the screen? 3 times? 5? Maybe 7? No, 17 so far... Food for thought?
What struck me most about watching the film, and the marketing for that matter, is just how "self-worthy" the film felt. I get a bad taste in the back of my mouth whenever I sense the well-educated and the well-paid are patting each other on the back, nodding and smiling, self-congratulatory, because every one of them is 'aware' they're involved in something 'important'; something that 'transcends the medium'. Well, to my mind, and to its own detriment, Macbeth reeks of that elitist critical thinking.

FINAL SCORE: 7/10
Epic visuals, haunting storytelling, and (as a cinema goer behind me aptly commented) "monumental" in its delivery, this is a worthy retelling of the Shakespeare play. If it does have a flaw, aside perhaps for being a tale too "hooey" for modern sensibilities, is that you can almost hear the crew practicing their acceptance speeches... But who knows, perhaps justly?

FINAL, FINAL WORD:
Macbeth's director Justin Kurzel, writer Michael Lesslie, and star Michael Fassbender are set to reunite for 2016's video-game-to-movie adaption Assassins Creed. On the face of it, the three would seem above such a low-brow project, but maybe I've got it all wrong. Having said that, Macbeth's costume isn't a thousand miles away from the look of the game, and Fassbender isn't without experience in the genre, having been in projects such as 300 and Centurion. Perhaps we're finally due a computer-game tie-in worthy of some attention? We'll wait and see...

MAD MAX, FURY ROAD; Carlisle's Final Word

"You know, hope is a mistake. If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane."
Max Rockatansky

Wait, where's Max? Isn't he supposed to be in this film?

SYNOPSIS:
30 years since completing his troubled third installment of the Mad Max series, writer/director George Miller returns to his roots with this, Fury Road, part sequel and part reboot of the classic science-fiction franchise.
After escaping from the clutches of a mutated tribe of marauders led by the fearsome Immortan Joe, Max is forced into a fragile alliance with Furiosa, a warrior woman who has just liberated Joe's prized sex-slaves and is now in search of the fabled 'green place' she once called home. Can Max and Furiosa survive not only each other, the seemingly endless challenges of the vast desert wastes, but also elude Immortan Joe's war-party, hot on their heels and thirsty for blood.

SCRIPT: 1/2
The emphasis of the first couple of Mad Max films was the acquisition of fuel, and by any means (still not entirely sure what the hell was going on in Thunder Dome). This time around however the focus is on life; water, vegetation and birth giving- the hope of a better future ("who killed the world?" is tellingly graffitied into the background of one dramatic shot). Life and hope become the subtext, but don't expect that to slow the pace or curb the insanity none- because while these themes remain prevalent throughout, the film is essentially a 90 minute chase from start to finish- a delirious homage to the western Stagecoach, or if you prefer, Mad Max 2's own brutal finale 'tanker chase'. It's very simplicity is the key to it's strength.
That said, the script isn't quite issue-free. The most notable 'issue' with the script, put simply, is this is NOT a Mad Max film. Firstly, While Max may well be an important character, he is, essentially, the sidekick. He's Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker: this is not his tale to tell. The character who drives this story forward, whose arc is changed by these events, who develops and becomes a stronger character throughout (although admittedly she's pretty bad-ass to start with), is Furiosa. And while I'm cool with that notion (Hell, it's quite daring to have your titular character drifting into someone other's story), I felt cheated by it's presentation. It's Max that opens the film and narrates the introduction, so it follows that, even if Max is not the most important character in this story, it should at least unfold from his perspective. But it doesn't...

Picture the scene: It's dark. The truck used by the main characters has broken down, and the marauders are closing in. Max, grim-faced and determined, volunteers to meet the threat head-on while Furiosa and her allies try and repair the vehicle. Now, if this were Max's story, as the film's title might suggest, we'd have followed him into battle. Yet, it is with Furiosa with whom we linger, and what could have easily been another action set piece is stripped back to distant gun fire in the night.

During the films final action-scene, it is Furiosa who comes face-to-deformed-face with Immortan Joe, while elsewhere Max grapples Joe's muscle-bound henchman. Even the denouement (abrupt and white-washed in my own view, but I appreciate at this point you need to wrap things up) closes alone on Furiosa. No further voice-over from Max to talk us out of the film as he did into it. That's because it isn't Max's story, and more importantly, it's not even Max's film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, the film would be no less successful had he not been in it, or his character's name changed to something else.
And a final, if very minor, gripe- the end of act two is a little late to be introducing a collection of new characters who, essentially, are there to make up the numbers, their only purpose to be killed of in a number of ways while the important characters survive...

PACE: 2/2
This has to be said for the film, it really doesn't slow down, except for a brief moment before the start of the third act, where aforementioned character-fodder are introduced before the climax.
If anything it rushes into the crux of the story a little too soon, and as a result we have little time to learn anything much about our main cast, beyond their broad stereotypes. But, that said, this was never going to be a film about subtleties- we get the bare bones of what we need to know, the rest is left blank. No concessions here to back-story of fleshing out the characters. If it's of no consequence, it's been trimmed. Consider the film like one of its many vehicles; the seats and dashboard have been hacked out, it's been welded with spikes, jump started, turbo injected and driven at 90 mph into the eye of a storm.

ACTING: 1/2
A tricky thing to address. Where do we draw the line between 'brilliance' and 'as much as the film calls for'? Well, for the most part, everybody embraced the absurdity of both the script and the setting and made their characters, if not exactly textured, at least memorable.
The very beautiful Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton have the unenviable task of playing the scantly-clad sex slaves of Immortan Joe, but they also bring a refreshingly barbed aspect to the typical 'damsel in distress' situation, while still fulfilling their quota of screaming and falling into danger. Hugh Keays-Byrne (who also played the lead villain in the first Mad Max film) Literally chews through his scenes with a gusto usually only associated with pantomimes or aboard pirate ships, and is one genuinely creepy head-fuck of a creation- a blistered, bloated and grotesque combination of Road Warrior's Humongous and Tom Hardey's Bane.
Charlize Theorn, herself a respected thesp, is far and away the best thing in Fury Road, and brings some real pathos to her role. In fact, addressing her performance alone is probably worthy of another post. While most action films seem content to simply cast a sexy girl in a traditional male story, Fury Road takes a surprisingly enlightened approach by embracing the work of Maureen Murdock, who built upon Joseph Campell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' in such a way as to address the different desires and obstacles on a woman's heroic journey.
So we come to Max, the titular character, as played by the ruggedly chiseled Tom Hardy. Now, it gives me no satisfaction to say this, because I actually like Tom Hardy, but his portrayal of Max is possibly one of the film's biggest short comings. He's a charmless, twitchy, charisma-vacuum of a character. He's out-shone in literally every one of his scenes and constantly fades into the background, even in the few scenes that focus on him. And when he talks (which he does rarely), he's affecting a voice so deep it borders on parody- like the Dark Knight with a throat infection.

AESTHETIC: 2/2
This is where the film comes into it's own and is truly something to behold. Sure, it's grotesque, surreal, disturbing and grimy, but it's really quite like nothing I've seen before. Writer / director Miller has taken the best aspects of Road Warrior and Thunderdome, given them a dust-off and crammed it full of so much rust, sand and bile as to push beyond the boundaries of science fiction and well into fantasy.
The film is certainly inventive in it's insanity; I mean, come on, while many armies have waltzed into battle behind a drummer, Immortan Joe drives to war with an orchestra and an electric guitarist! Other nice touches include; smiley faces drawn on tumors, donor details tattooed onto hostages, the Dali-esque stilts of the swamp dwellers, the list is endless. The world building detail is so rife you're sure to see more on repeat viewings. Even the War Boys, who could have easily existed as wreckage-fodder, are dealt with in like fashion. The enthusiasm for which they go into battle, with little to no self regard, is almost comical- it's like someone took Gru's Minions and brainwashed them with Prodogy albums.
Much has been made of the films reliance on actual vehicular carnage, but despite this it still leans too heavily on the crutch of CGI, and unfortunately it just isn't up to scratch. In fact, in some points it looks terribly cheap (even the rather impressive looking sand storm looked pretty shoddy inside). The film would have been stronger for keeping moments like this to a minimum, but they pop up with alarming regularity and they compare badly to the physicality of the real-life stunt work. The moments of slow-motion also work to the films disadvantage.
And is it me, or did a lot of the scenes in the first half of the film feel like they'd been cranked-up? Not just the car chases. On a few occasions I swear Tom Hardy's movements had been sped up as well, making him look even more twitchy than usual (especially apparent in the scene where he begins filing his muzzle- keep your eyes open for this and tell me what you think).

INTENTION: 1/2
If the film is to be taken on it's own merits alone, it's a pretty solid effort and will easily entertain action and science fiction junkies, and it will no doubt spawn a successful new franchise. But a Mad Max film it is not. And I don't mean simply that Max wasn't prevalent enough in the story...
I have  a better memory of the first two Mad Max films than I do of Thunder Dome, but as I wrote in my lead up to Fury Road's release date, these were unrelentingly grim, unglamorous and brutal. They were rough-edged and uncomfortable to watch. Simply put, Fury Road is too sanitised. In Fury Road, characters are allowed meaningful last glances and heroism is usually rewarded. Despite all the carnage you 'think' you've witnessed, you never once see people crushed beneath the wheels, smashed through windshields, impaled on spikes and barbed wire, or trapped in blazing wreckage. What little violence is on show throughout Fury Road would almost be permissible at a 12 certificate (I think the scantly clad women and one uncomfortable scene involving a stillborn delivery are what tipped the film into 15). Sure, people are hurled through the sky, and vehicles blow up, but that's mostly what you get- it's a very bloodless affair. Even the death scene of Immortan Joe, who so richly deserved a nasty finish, is cut so fast that I couldn't tell how he actually died.
And I make this criticism not as a gore-hound but as a critic. I'm absolutely fine without blood and guts; a great many of my favorite films haven't needed excess violence to work- but the Mad Max films ARE violent, it's integral to how that universe functions, therefore the removal of such things leaves this an oddly sanitised experience.

FINAL SCORE: 7/10
At it's best, it's a slick, fast-paced and deliriously inventive chase through a nightmarish wasteland, and at it's worst it feels like only half a story. But kudos where it's due, a shout out has to be made to the studio for helming such a staggeringly strange project- it feels like a straight-to-VHS classic from the 80's. Keep an open mind and think of Fury Road as a homage to Mad Max rather than an actual reinvention and you'll probably enjoy the film a whole lot more. He may be 70 now, but George Miller proves he still has a trick or two up his sleeve, and can still make a better action film than most of today's generation of copy-paste directors.



FINAL, FINAL WORD:
I'm not a fan of the 'haunting' scenes in Fury Road, where Max is tortured by unforgiving visions of his murdered son. I mean, I get that Mad Max isn't a subtle picture, but Christ. If you do have to go down this road, you don't need all the jump-editing and dodgy skeleton flashes, they really steal away any sense of loss or grief. All this CGI trickery, and yet not one single moment as haunting or effecting as the one lingering shot in Mad Max of a lone shoe on the highway... Sometimes less is more, even in a film like this.

Just as a point of interest, I watched the film with two very close friends, one of whom described Fury Road as "30 Days of Night meets Benidorm". I'm not quite sure in which context she intended the statement, but it's a sentence that deserves repeating. How can I compete with a review like that?

THE SALUTE OF THE JUGGER; Carlisle’s Final Word

"Someone from The League kicked me. The man from the City. The good one... 
I could be good like that. I'm going away, mama."

Kidda.

Jugger's alternative title is 'The Blood of Heroes'. It's easy to see why...

Synopsis;

In the wastelands of the new world, none are more venerated or adored than the Juggers; gladiator-like competitors of a brutal sport, played for wealth and renown.

Kidda is a young peasant girl who plays this dangerous sport to the disapproval of her family, with ambitions to compete professionally in the ‘Nine Cities’. With the arrival of Sallow, a veteran of the City leagues before his banishment, Kidda may finally have a chance to fulfill her dreams of leaving the desert wastes behind her for a better life among the ruling classes…

Script Logic; 1 / 2

The film, written and directed by genre veteran David Webb Peoples (the writer of some pretty big-hit films, including Blade Runner, Unforgiven and 12 Monkeys) is strong in terms of its structural narrative, although, oddly, the dialogue occasionally falters. To be honest, sometimes it was difficult to tell if the lines were duff or simply badly delivered; some of the exchanges were affecting and powerful (Kidda has never felt the touch of silk, and later laments the rarity of skin unblemished by scars), while other lines are jarringly flat.

Pace; 1 / 2

The pace, while never boring, feels like it never quite ‘pops’- the 90 minute run time felt much longer, probably in part due to the fact that most of the film is devoid of real dialogue- most of the story is told through images alone; desolate landscapes, scowls, and the violence of the Juggers. The momentum is slower than you might expect from a film such as this, but that’s not really a criticism. Rather than being a ‘sports-movie’ in this respect, the film feels more like a journey, which is in-keeping with the journey of the characters, from the desert slums into the bowls of the City.

Aesthetic 2/2

The aesthetics of the film are probably the most notable highlight. The so-called ‘Dog towns’ are suitably sand-weathered and gritty, while the underground chambers of the City, far from the paradise Kidda had believed them to be, are a surreal network of damp corridors and long shadows. There are so many nice touches and moments of creative flair; it’s hard to choose favourites; the animal-skull trophies, stones being thrown against a gong to mark the progress of time, the backpack-wardrobe contraption, or the ‘bedding arrangements’ below ground.

Acting; 1 / 2

Even the less defined characters are surprisingly empathetic (or, in some instances, sleazily vile), and with little in the way of dialogue or screen time, this can only be testament to acting capability. However, the strongest and weakest performances by far belong to the two leads; Rutger Hauer and Joan Chen respectively. Rutger brings equal parts tragedy and valour to his ‘grizzled veteran’ role, which could easily have been a dull cliché in another actors’ hands, and while Joan may not have been quite up to the task of shouldering the bulk of the narrative, she’s still an amiable screen presence and will have viewers rooting for. It would have been nice to see some of the other characters develop further, played by capable actors such as Vincent D'Onofrio and Delroy Lindo, but this isn’t to the detriment of the film.

Intention 2 / 2

It is what it is. It means to be a brutal apocalypse-guised sports movie, and it is. The film weaves between the two genres with skilful and entertaining ease. While it delivers on the promise of the sport’s brutality, it’s never overly explicit or glamorous (and for the most part, a comradery exists between fellow Juggers that prevents the violence ever being the sole intent of the sport), so it will satisfy both action-seekers and those of a more cerebral disposition.

Final Score; 7 / 10

Without doubt, Salute of the Jugger is among the best of that era’s science-fiction blood-sport movies- of which there were many, most notably Rollerball, likewise a decent film. Mostly, this is thanks to a very strong aesthetic combined with the charisma and likability of its two central leads. Well worth a watch for both fans of the typical sporting-underdog story and those of a science-fiction disposition.

SUNSHINE; Carlisle's Final Word

“At the end of time, a moment will come when just one man remains. Then the moment will pass. Man will be gone. There will be nothing to show that we were ever here... but stardust.”

Pinbacker

If you can't stand the heat... What was that last part?

Synopsis;

50 years into the future, a team comprised of both astronauts and scientists undergo a mission to reignite the dying sun. Having with them the last of Earth’s resources to carry out this mission they represent mankind’s last chance of survival. However, complications lead them on a detour revealing the fate of the previous ship which seemingly vanished while attempting the same mission 7 years ago…

In the words of Capa, the ships lead scientific adviser and the film's main protagonist;

“Our sun is dying. Mankind faces extinction. Seven years ago the Icarus project sent a mission to restart the sun but that mission was lost before it reached the star. Sixteen months ago, I, Robert Capa, and a crew of seven left earth frozen in a solar winter. Our payload a stellar bomb with a mass equivalent to Manhattan Island. Our purpose to create a star within a star.”

The film marks another collaboration between Danny  Boyle (of 28 Days Later fame) and screenwriter Alex Garland (also the screen writer for the aforementioned 28 Weeks Later, and also the recent Dredd reboot).

Script Logic; 1/2

My review could almost be written in two different parts, because almost all my concerns for the film stem from a plot development (spoilers ahead) 73 minutes in… 

Up until this point the script works hard to establish logic and credibility for the unfolding events, and character’s motivations and consequently (for better or worse) feel as though they come from a real-place.
Much has been made (by more academic types than myself) concerning the scientific theory in the film, and a great many cries of “that’s not correct” and “it wouldn’t happen like that” can be heard from the scientific community- but I can overlook this if it serves either plot or character- after all, this is very advanced theory we’re talking about here, nothing that should shatter the illusion of disbelief for most audiences. I mean, if the film had renowned physicist Brian Cox as an adviser it can’t be all that wrong, can it? In Cox’s own words “"Sunshine is not a documentary.”

Then we reach minute 73, and things undergo something of a radical change...

After a verbal exchange between Capa and the ships on-board computer we discover that Pinbacker, the captain of the previous mission who had succumb to madness and slaughtered his own crew, is alive and causing havoc on the second ship. That’s all fine, but the film falls apart from this point onwards; not because this was a plot-point too far (I actually really liked this sudden tonal shift), but simply because everybody begins to act in that typical ‘horror-film-moron’ type way that undermines much of the films slow-build realism. By way of example, rather than announce to the crew over the loudspeaker system that Pinbacker is possibly alive and on board the ship causing havoc, Capa decides to head to this maniac’s suspected vicinity to confront him (needless to say this doesn’t end too well).

Pinbacker himself (who realistically should have died of his sun-induced burns long, long ago, but which I can overlook as his burns are a good aesthetic choice) suddenly becomes the typical ‘unstoppable-appears-everywhere-slasher-killer’ and so the film begins a poorly misjudged downward spiral into what's best described as 'Event Horizon' territory*. And to make matters worse, whenever Pinbacker does appear, the focus becomes very blurred and jerky, almost entirely obscuring his features. I think this was supposed to give the impression of heat and insanity, and to make him an almost inhuman on-screen presence, but it just came across like the camera man was suffering some sort of seizure. To be honest, I thought my copy of the film was damaged, it took me a while to realise this was all intentional.

Pace; 1/2

While it never felt a labour to watch, the pace did feel a little over-reflective in parts, especially in relation to the chaotic final, which felt like what should have been an hour’s worth of material was crammed into just 20 minutes. Having said that, none of the time the film spent moving forward was ever wasted, and (most of) the characters were given sufficient space to become more than just two-dimensional fodder- the characters themselves being this film's hidden Ace.

Acting; 2/2

One of the film's real strengths are it's characterisations, and everybody here gives solid and heartfelt performances. Even the characters intended to be prickly are never less than believable. Not since the first Alien have a crew in space felt more real, more vulnerable or more alone.
Cillian Murphy gives a performance more than a little reminiscent of Brian Cox (no accident I'm certain), a scientist in complete awe of his surroundings but in over-his head when it comes to any real hands-on work, and Michelle Yeoh excels as the ship's soulful botanist.
The very beautiful Rose Byrne plays the ships affable pilot- her heart is very clearly on her sleeve and she's probably the film's most humane character. Resident hunk Chris Evans, who'd I'd never really considered an acting talent before now, plays the role of the no-nonsense pragmatist perfectly, and turns what could have been the role of "crew dick head" into an oddly sympathetic character, while Mark Strong (ever watchable) does what he can with the role of Pinbaker- the burnt fundamentalist who believes he is doing the Will of God, and despite the climax's intangible surreality manages to still give a chilling performance.
However (and I've left him till last as my favorite of all these stand-out performances), Hiroyuki Sanada steals his scenes as the empathetic and heroic captain of the crew- just a shame that he exits the story so early; his presence is so strong and assured that you can't help but believe that with him still around the mission may have gone a lot smoother...

Aesthetic; 2/2

The film obviously owes a great debt to the likes of Alien and 2001, but which science-fiction films don't? While not a large budget film (in evidence with some of the CGI) the film does well with what it has; and what it may lack in finance for computer trickery it more than compensates with in set and costume design. Everything feels like it has a function, a purpose for being in place- and that kind of detail only heightens the drama, the sense of realism and the central performances.

Originality & Intention; 1/2

An interesting idea is at the heart of this film, and it's execution is very solid. While not entirely original, this film is not simply content to stand on the shoulders of established classics and works hard to be taken seriously on it's own merits. While never being too 'preachy', it addresses themes of spirituality and of global warming, and the core conceit of a dying sun to bring these elements together is striking in it's simplicity but also very intriguing.

Final Score; 7/10 

Apart from the gear-shift climax the film is almost a perfect score. Again, I wasn't opposed to the 'idea' of Pinbacker boarding the ship (I think that's an exciting development), but it should have been handled more like Se7en and less like a bizarre dream-sequence. That one criticism aside, Sunshine is a very decent film- with a thoughtful premise, thrilling scenes of near-catastrophe, a suitably somber tone and very strong performances all-round. Even if it leaves itself a little 'untied' by the climax it doesn't really take much away from the experience, but being the film's only real flaw it was bound to get some attention in this review. 
Well worth seeing, but I do honestly believe Danny Boyle is an often over rated director who's more a slave to his own pretensions than he is the function of story, as was also the case with the decent but flawed 28 Days Later (similarly hampered by a poor third act).



* My earlier comparison to Event Horizon almost sounded like a criticism of the later, which was unintended. Event Horizon's final worked because the film itself was a gothic-space-fantasy, it's roots firmly in the Hellraiser tradition of gore and unapologetic, unsubtle horror. For those same reasons this didn't work for Sunshine, which up till this point was a thoughtful and realistic physiological drama.