"SHE'S KILLING FOR SPORT"

 Owen (Jurassic World)

Brice Dallis Howard faces off against man-eating monsters... And dinosaurs.

I don't often risk voicing an opinion when I've not seen all the facts for myself, but I feel, given my position as a critic and an equalist, I have to address the 'sexism controversy' surrounding the new Jurassic World. I may well need to reconsider my position after seeing the film, which hopefully I will do soon, but I do want to at least want to discuss the matter first...

The sexism controversy in question surrounds the female lead of Jurrassic World, a character named Claire Dearing (played by the bautiful and very talented Bryce Dallis Howard)- a career-driven, office-based 'cold fish'; a woman with no maternal instinct whatsoever, and no wish to spend time with her two young nephews, thrust on her during the first act. Well, I guess it's pretty obvious from this set up, and the subsequent trailers, that the dinosaurs eventually escape their pens and go on a rampage. Through the course of the film Claire reflects on her life decisions, ditches her job, finds herself a "good man" and (having finally bonded with her nephews) decides to try having children of her own...

"Everyone remain calm!" Claire (Jurassic World)

Feminists united in their outrage of the film the world over because, in their opinion, Clare's shift in attitude encapsulates the myth that for any woman to be 'truly happy' she first needs to find a man and pump-out a few sprogs. And it's not just the feminists who are pissed-off either. Writer / director Joss Whedon (a man for whom I have a great deal of respect) also gave his two-sense-worth over Twitter, calling the film "70's era sexist", although this comment was made after viewing only the trailer, having not seen the actual film (and if he's allowed to have an opinion before seeing the film, then I guess I must be entitled, too).

"We need more teeth!" Gary (Jurassic World)

So, having read the criticism leveled at Jurassic World, watched the trailers, read some of the interviews, and being a man with what I hope is a sound and rational mind, I've come to two conclusions.

1/ The first Jurassic Park film focused on a character called Alan Grant, a job-driven and up-tight archaeologist, a 'cold fish' who couldn't stand the company of children (can you see where this is going yet?). During the course of the film Grant finds himself the unlikely protector of two young children, and as these two sweet kids eventually melt his cold and unfeeling heart Grant comes to realise he might quite like having some of his own. This is a carbon copy of Claire Dearing's character arc throughout Jurassic World (or rather, her's is a carbon copy of Grant's), yet Jurassic Park has never been considered sexist in its treatment of men. Why's it considered OK for a male to play the 'stiff' while not for a female? Interesting. You could draw a number of conclusions from this, but the concept that I find the most uncomfortable is that it appears feminists deem women unable to make their own decisions; to choose for themselves what will bring their lives the most joy and / or sense of completion. And again, this serves as yet another example of the dual standards by which the more extreme echelons of feminism operates.

2/ Jurassic World is a popcorn movie about dinosaurs eating people. It's unlikely it has sinister and salacious designs on society. It encourages you to turn your brain into neutral-mode and enjoy the spectacle, so perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to search for a subtext... In fact, I'd go a step further. Perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to read meaning into ANY film? Not every character should be considered a microcosm through which we can view a specific gender, religion or ethnic group. The world is a diverse place, filled with many diverse people- different creeds, colours and beliefs. Some are good, some bad, and many are pitched somewhere in between; their views will not always reflect our own, and neither will their actions. Claire Dearing decides she wants to settle down and have children, and this is Claire Dearing's decision, not ours- she is not, and should not be considered, "every-woman" (no more than Alan Grant or Travis Bickle are "every-man").  If the film making process reaches a point where every character has to pander to certain demographics, then we may as well fucking quit making films.

Or perhaps I've missed the point somewhere?

With that in mind, I'll leave you with one last quote from the film.

"Nothing in Jurassic World is natural..." Dr. Henry Wu (Jurassic World)

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?

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; Carlisle's Final Word

"War has... already begun. Ape started war. And human... Human will not forgive." 

Caeser

What did I learn watching this film? Never piss off an ape.

Synopsis:

In the years following their escape across the San Francisco bridge, Cesare and his intelligence-enhanced tribe are living peacefully in the forests, almost oblivious to the complete collapse of mankind by a deadly virus. That is, till a small group of human survivors accidentally wander into their territory. What follows from this tense encounter is an unlikely yet shaky alliance, as both sides strive to better their lives, but old hatreds die-hard and tragedy looms on the horizon, threatening to lead both man and ape into a bloody conflict...




Script: 1/2

The script is solid by any standards, with a small-scale focus and intimate drama rarely seen in Blockbuster fodder. Cesare’s character arc is the most effecting (he is, after all, the lead), and it's the primates who are given the most to do on screen. Despite the fact the titular primates do more than carry the film, more effort could have been put into fleshing-out some of the human characters. During the more human-centered elements the film is at its weakest; story arcs and character motivations aren’t so well defined, meaning that the film's nail-biting climax, while very dramatic from the point of view of the apes, lacks punch while resolving the human character's journeys.


Pace: 1/2

Never a dull moment. The story appears to take it’s time and build suspense while simultaneously rushing at break-neck speeds to its inevitable and tragic conclusion. And even though it’s clear from the outset that man and ape will know no peace, audiences will still find themselves engrossed to uncover the reasons for this bloodshed, and captivated by the heroism and betrayal on both sides of the species divide. However, that same script flaw also costs the film a further mark here- while the pace may work in favor of the apes, it still leaves the humans with little time to become fully rounded characters...


Acting: 2/2

No weak links here, believe me. I mean, has motion capture ever been so captivating? Never. But leaving aside the incredible facial performances of the apes (as played by the always incredible Andy Serkis and co), even the less developed humans, as played by veteran Gary Oldman, and the lesser-known but equably reliable Jason Clarke and Keri Russel, convey a desperate and anguished realism: they all have the look of people who have seen terrible things, and lost something inside during the process of survival.


Aesthetic: 2/2

One of the film's many triumphs (and possibly its biggest talking point) is the superb special effects. While they don’t quite manage to cross the 'uncanny valley', like many knee-jerk critics claim, they do represent a big step in the right direction, and this is a far more significant breakthrough than claimed by the overhyped Avatar. While most of the CGI seen in films is distracting at best, on this occasion you'll soon forget that what you're watching are a bunch of CGI primates; instead, you’ll find yourself completely captivated by the realism and subtleties of their performances and character arcs.

One very minor gripe, I personally found the score distracting (all percussion drums and awkward pauses before the beats). While I do understand this is a conscious call-back to the original Planet of the Apes films, I did found myself being “taken out” of the action. But like I said, it’s very a minor gripe.


Intention: 2/2

The first Planet of the Apes reboot / prequel was a pleasant surprise- a blockbuster with both invention and heart, but this, the second in the new run, is a superior film in all respects, and technically and dramatically better than most summer fodder.




Final Score: 8/10

Serious-minded, affecting, heartrending and exhilarating- a film that actually does more than live up to the hype; I hope the series continues in the same vein, although this has certainly set the bench mark staggeringly high.

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN; Carlisle's Final Word

"There's something else about bears not many people know. If a bear gets hooked on the taste of human blood, it becomes a man-killer. He'll go on a rampage and has to be destroyed. And that's why you should never hug a bear. " 

Hobo

Rutger Hauer, you deserve so much better than this...

Synopsis:

A nameless drifter wonders into the city, hoping for a fresh start, only to realise he’s literally entered the most corrupt, sinister and lawless inner-city war-zone this side of Bosnia. As he witnesses with growing despair the violence all around him, he finds himself compelled to act for the greater good of the city’s many victims, arming himself with a double barreled shotgun, and dispensing some bloody civic-minded justice. Along the way he finds time to bond with beautiful-hooker-with-a-heart Abby, before finally squaring-off against the city’s all-powerful, untouchable criminal overlord "The Drake".


Script: 0/2

Not that the script was ever intended to be more than an excuse for  stringing together as much gratuitous gore and shocking violence as possible, even by the most forgiving standards, the script is terrible. Worse than terrible. Fucking useless. Plot holes (even if you’re trying your hardest to overlook them) litter the run-time, patchy ideas are never fully developed, awful (heinous, actually) dialogue undermines the story at every turn, and there is sweet F.A in terms of character development- outside of what ‘old pro’ Rutger Hauer manages to bring to his titular role.


Pace: 0/2

Despite its many faults, at least it rattles along at a fast pace. However, at a relatively brisk 90 minutes the film still feels stretched and, unforgivably, dull. As a 3 minute joke-trailer, the idea had probably run its course, so you can see there could be some issue with the remaining 87 minutes… It put me in mind of all the ‘dead baby’ jokes I heard as a young teenager- because, I’ll freely admit, sometimes shocking people is quite satisfying (although it’s much funnier if you can also make them think, too!), but those old jokes only worked (if they ever worked at all, which is debatable) because they were short and sharp.


Acting: 0/2

The acting (if you can call it that) should be scored in the negatives, but genre veteran Rutger Hauer somehow transcends the material, rising above the limp scenarios and risible lines of the script to deliver a gravitas and pathos that almost (almost!) makes the film worth catching. He offers something raw and real amongst all the surreal chaos and you’re left wishing bitterly that the film had tackled its subject in a way that showcased his talents in a better light- because, believe it or not, there is a germ of a good idea buried in this rancid shit-stain of a film.
So, does Rutger’s performance somehow counterbalance the shockingly amateur acting offered up by the rest of the cast? Sadly no, not by a long way...


Aesthetic: 1/2

Rating the film in terms of an aesthetic is a tad difficult in this respect. It’s garish and rough-edged, but intentionally so- and if anything it actually looks cheaper than its meager budget. But, having said that, the gore is elaborately handled, and the film does more to recreate its sensibility to time-and-place than simply adding grain and poor focus to some of the shots- even the framing and colour pallet echo the ‘grindhouse’ style, and perhaps in this respect alone, Hobo’s creators deserve some praise, and this mess of a film comes closest to any high-minded pretensions.


Intention: 0/2

Half way through the film, I was struck with a single thought, and once it hit me I was unable to shake it from my mind: “why am I still watching this?” I mean, what is the point of this film, why does it even exist? Is it funny? No. Is it poignant? No. Does it have something to say? No. Beyond offering up shocks, is it of any other value? No. When the controversy dies down (particularly in regard to its censor-bating "school bus flamethrower" scene), will anybody remember it? I doubt it. So, in answer to my own question, I think I only finished watching this film for Rutger Hauer...

It’s not enough to simply ‘be grindhouse', you need to subvert it, or bring something different to the table. 1000’s of films like this have faded into obscurity because (crucially) they were crap. The films that people recall affectionately from this period of cinema history did something more than simply delivering the expected excess and shocks of the genre.


Final Score: 1/10

Kudos where kudos is due; as a 3 minute trailer on the Grindhouse film, Hobo With a Shotgun was pretty funny, in a base sort of way, but at feature-length the joke is pretty thinly spread. At best, Hobo with a Shotgun can be considered a 90 minute ‘dead baby’ joke, and at worst it’s a disturbing harbinger of cinemageddon and a worrying indictment of humanity.


Final Word:

I’ve made a small exception to my usual scoring rules; if you neither care or know who Rutger Hauer is, consider this a neon-flashing 1/10 rating, but if, like me, you respect Rutger Hauer and enjoy his work enough you would consider watching anything, no matter how cheap or awful it is, simply because he’s in it, consider this film a 2/10… The man deserves so much better than this.

"A long time ago I was one of you. You're all brand new and perfect. No mistakes, no regrets. People look at you and think of how wonderful your future will be. They want you to be something special... like a... a doctor or a lawyer. I hate to tell you this, but if you grow up here, you're more likely to wind up selling your bodies on the streets, or shooting dope from dirty needles in a bus stop. And if you're successful, you'll make money selling junk to crackheads. And you won't think twice about killing someone's wife, because you won't even know what was wrong in the first place. Or, maybe... you'll end up like me - a hobo with a shotgun! I hope you can do better. You are the future." 

Hobo.

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.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY; Carlisle's Final Word

"I am going to die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy."
Gamora

"What a bunch of A-holes"

Synopsis;

The long awaited and much hyped companion-piece to Marvel's Avenger series, and the first mainstream effort for fringe director James Gunn- the man who bought us both Slither and Super.
The plot follows Peter Quill, who as a child is abducted by a band of alien scavangers. 26 years later, he's adopted the alias of Star Lord and roams the galaxy as a petty outlaw. However, all that soon changes when he comes into possession of a powerful orb- an ancient artifact that the evil warlord Ronan the Accuser will stop at nothing to control. Along with two bounty-hunters, a deadly assassin, and an escaped convict, Peter becomes an unlikely hero- and the galaxy's last hope of survival...

"So here we are: a thief, two thugs, an assassin and a maniac. But we're not going to stand by as evil wipes out the galaxy. I guess we're stuck together, partners."

Peter Quill

Script Logic; 1/2

Let's not skirt the issue, the plot was never what this film was concerned with. But, as an affectionate love-letter to the absurdest sci-fi pulp novels of yesteryear, and as the backbone to string together an array of dazzling set pieces, the plot functions just fine. It's not high-concept, or breathtakingly original (on the contrary, it strives to be the reverse of that), but it serves its function nicely.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to the plot- it's the standard "big bad guy threatens the little guys, band of misfits to the rescue" deal in the mold of 'Serenity' and countless other sci-fi and westerns, including 'Avengers Assemble', and that's no bad thing. There are one or two holes in logic, but to be honest, you only start to realise this well after leaving the cinema- and by then you've been far too entertained to let it spoil your buzz.

"Peter Quill has a space ship and knows where Earth is, why did he never go home?... Why is Earth the only planet that doesn't have a clue whats going on in the galaxy?... Oh fuck it, I don't care."

In it's conception this owes more than a debt to Joss Whedon, which comes as no surprise how he's overseeing all the Marvel projects that tie-in with the Avengers.  So, no coincidence then that 'Gaurdians of the Galaxy' is very similar in tone to those movies; a strong focus on character, thrills and laughs, and as a result a very similar beast to Joss Whedon's own 'Serenity' (the cinema released resolution to the TV show 'Firefly'). Again, no bad thing.
For a film that takes great pains to appear scrappy, hap-hazard , all with an indie-sensibility, it's actually a very polished, studio-led project, with no one thing left to chance.


Pace; 2/2

At a brisk 120 minutes (a refreshing change to recent blockbuster behemoths) the story never lags. Not for a second. At points it even feels too fast, in a roller-coaster kinda way. In no time at all, Peter Quill is abducted from Earth, then an adult in space, ambushed on a barren planet, escapes in a space ship, attacked by an assassin and a pair of bounty-hunters and incarcerated in an intergalactic-Alcatraz; sounds like that should take the best part of half a film, but all this takes place in the first 15 minutes.


Acting; 1/2

First, let's consider the main cast. By now so much has already been written about how excellent all the lead performances are, but it's still worth repeating.
Chris Pratt shines in his douche-with-a-heart persona, liberally borrowing from Han Solo and Downy Jr's Tony Stark, all while channeling his inner Jack Sparrow ("but you have heard of me"). Zoe Saldana, with the unenviable task of playing the overly familiar troupe of emotionless-female-assassin, actually plays a blinder- her arc , and the revelation of her emotions and humanity are understated yet convincing. She turns what could have easily been a boring eye-candy role into a brilliant character. Former wrestler Dave Bautista has truly made this role his own and gives it his all, and surprisingly his avenging-Conan betrays a vulnerable sweetness- as well as having some of the funniest lines in the film (with a very dangerous line in "metaphors"). Finally, we have the voice talents of Bradley Cooper and the absurdly macho Vin Diesel- both of whom turn bat-shit-crazy concepts (a talking raccoon and a human-tree) into loveable, believable and fully realised characters- I kid you not. Vin's Groot is particularly loveable, a fungal reworking of his earlier Iron Giant.

The villains unfortunately let the side down a little...
Josh Brolin does what he can with his meager role as Thanos  (who will no doubt go onto becoming the ultimate villain in the inevitable Guardians & Avengers crossover), and while he's no doubt menacing he's in the film too little to make any real impact and simply feels shoe-horned in as foreshadowing- a criticism inherent of the films leading up-to Avengers Assemble. Djimon Hounsou feels similarly wasted in his part as, what is essentially, "lead thug". British TV's Karen Gillan has little time to develop her assassin character beyond "sadistic female assassin" and "jealous sister"- but her survival ensures her presence in future installments.
Lastly, we have Lee Pace as the film's chief villain, Ronan the Accuser. I'm not sure what to make of Ronan. Yes, he's sinister. Yes, he's intimidating. Yes, he has suitably villainy lines. But he's, well, sort of boring. there's nothing special or unique about him. To use Joss Whedon's work as an analogy (which would seem fitting)  Ronan the Accuser could quite easily be placed into an episode of Buffy the Vampire slayer, but as a one-show baddie rather than a series-long and charismatic opponent- which is damning criticism when the whole story to Guardians of the Galaxy hinges on how evil he is. Also, politically troubling in an otherwise light-heated film, Ronan the Accuser is a thinly veiled interpretation of a Jihad extremist; a religious fanatic who wants to bring his ancient code of tyranny to bare on a progressive mostly-white society for their perceived sins. His tactics include suicide bombings and even his facial warpaint resembled an Islamic beard! Ronan the Accuser; part Mortal Kombat's Shao Khan, part Osama Bin Laden.
It's not that any of the rouges gallery are poorly acted, not at all- just that they all felt either wasted or under developed by the script- and I can't help but feel maybe a different cast could have saved it?


Aesthetic; 2/2

Another of the film's many aces, Guardians of the Galaxy looks fantastic- like a pulp-cover made real. The film steers away from the gritty and grungy realism of most modern sci-fi in favor of an almost-cheesy,  gaudy and fantastical backdrop; space ships shaped like starfish and skulls, golden and green vapor clouds, shiny cities, and a hero who wears a hot-rod red leather jacket. All of this the product of the studio working closely with conceptual artist and sci-fi illustrator Stephan Martiniere (check him out). I don't think I've seen a world quite like it, and this helps give the film a much needed identity.



Originality & Intention; 2/2

Tongues were soon wagging at the prospect of James Gunn joining forces with Marvel studios. This was never going to be a mediocre film; either it was going to reach to reach the skies, or it was going to crash and burn (and with a budget this high, that's a lot of burning). Throughout it's journey from conception through production the public were bombarded with artwork, set reports, interviews with the stars and crew, trailers, trailers and even more trailers- all of which promised spectacular results, but could just have easily set the bar impossibly high, setting the stage for a colossal fall.  Luckily, Guardians of the Galaxy delivered the goods. No doubt this is the film its director, and Marvel studios, hoped it would be; loud, brash, flippant, absurd, nostalgic, funny, fast and thrilling.




Final Score; 8/10

While it skillfully avoids the twin pitfalls of having too much studio-interference while never becoming too "out-there" to appeal to mainstream audiences, it does make some concessions to the Marvel franchise; too many characters, too many loose ends. Aside from that small grumble, Guardians of the Galaxy is a huge gamble that paid off, thanks in no small part to a witty script and some fantastic performances. The film itself is still 'fringe' enough to cater to cult tastes and die-hard Gunn fans who are more accustomed to his harder-edged films, while still having the gloss and budget to complete its director's singular vision. Sure, aspects of the Act 3 are a bit overly-sentimental, but hey, it's a kids film- get over it.



Final Word;

Soundtrack is something I don't normally cover in great detail during these reviews. I know what I like, and I know what I think works well. I'd just like to say that initially I believed the use of 80's music in the film would be a joke that soon wore thin, but I was surprised by just how much mileage there was in the idea of retro kitsch tunes juxtaposed with the film's neon-galaxy setting. The end result is oddly touching, dramatic and very funny- and most importantly has a strong dramatic root in the story, rather than simply being a throw-away gag.
I expect to see the downloads for these songs go throw the roof...

"Why would you want to save the galaxy?" 
 Rocket   

"Because I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!"

Peter Quill