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...

LEGEND; Carlisle's Final Word

"We're talking about being gangsters, that's what we are!"

Ronald Kray 

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, from Tarantino's new Alice in Wonderland... Or not.

SYNOPSIS:
As most people should probably realise, Legend is the cinematic retelling of celebrity-gangster siblings Reggie and Ronni Kray. Penned and directed by Brian Helgeland, screenwriter of the fantastic LA Confidential and Man On Fire, Legend opens on Reggie's first encounter with Francis, the naive narrator of the story, and it is through her perspective that we see both her troubled relationship with the Kray brothers, as well as the hedonistic and violent pinnacle of their criminal empire before it's subsequent (and inevitable) collapse.

SCRIPT: 1/2
The first half of the film, lambasted by some critics as over glamorous, is intentionally rose-tinted because it's a story seen through the eyes of one who is head-over-heels in love with one of the central antagonists- here Frances is never intended to be anything other than an unreliable narrator. It's only when married that Frances, now jaded and growing rapidly more reliant on drugs, is in the full realisation that her "darling Reggie" has no intention of ever going 'straight'. It is in this second half of the story that this image of the 'lovable cockney rouge' begins to crumble. Tellingly, the colours are never so bright, the smiles never so sincere, and Reggie turns from antagonist to protagonist, and both brothers begin to sow the seeds of their own downfall...
The experience feels almost like watching two films; the transition is in no way gradual, it's actually quite jarring, but this suddenness makes the device all the more powerful. But, in spite of this novel approach, Legend is, in all truth, a simple nuts-and-bolts gangster film- only notable for the (supposedly) real-life subject matter (more on this later) and a towering duel performance from Tom Hardy.

PACE: 2/2
Despite the fairly standard gangster film arc of criminal-on-the-rise to criminal-on-the-fall, Legend moves at an expertly timed pace; characters are allowed to develop, the film favors tension over explicit violence (for the most part), and at just over 2 hours no moment ever feels too rushed or too stretched. The mid-way change in tone also works to wrong-foot viewers, meaning (whatever your thoughts are on other matters) you can never accuse the film of being dull.

 ACTING: 2/2
This is truly where the film comes into it's own. Emily Browning (of Sucker Punch and Sleeping Beauty infamy) manages a London accent that's never less than 100% convincing (an achievement in itself, but coming from a native Australian when even most British actors can't manage it, all the more impressive), and her classic/soulful beauty is very well suited to the period setting of the film. But not only does Browning look and sound the part, her narration successfully grounds and frames the context of the film (only occasionally does it feel intrusive, but that's hardly the fault of the actress). The ever-dependable Christopher Eccleston and David Thewlis make the most of smaller roles but are never less than engaging, as you'd expect from such talent, while Paul Bettany is also very good but wasted as a rival gangster, his screen time accumulating to approximately seventy seconds... Although (perhaps wrongly?) I sense Bettany's part may have once been a larger role now trimmed during the editing...
So that leaves us with what can only be described as the linchpin of Legend's success, Tom Hardy. I'm not sure I have anything to add to what's already been said about Hardy's roles, but I'll give lip service where it's due: Yes, he's brilliant, and very fast you'll forget you're watching the same man in both roles- such is the level of both his personal magnetism, intimidating bulk, and the CGI trickery. As Reggie, Hardy is, to begin with, all twinkle-eyed charm and devil-may-care swagger, but slowly we begin to see the sad truth that, despite his seeming reluctance to be a gangster, Reggie is secretly very much a danger through-and-through. Hardy's Ronnie is, at times, dangerously close to parody, but an alarming knee-jerk suddenness to violent outbursts, as well as a very unnerving stare, ensure the character will forever be compared favorably to Martin Scorsese's back catalog of psychopaths, and yet somehow Hardy manages to weave a sense of tragedy into this character; like an abused dog gone feral, you can pity the beast but that never makes it any less frighting.
Oddly enough, it is Reggie who gets the film's most comical lines, of which there are a great many. You may not realise this going in to the film, but it's probably funnier in it's first half than most comedies. Hardy utilises his wit and playful delivery to great effect, and as such the audience will find themselves reluctantly warming to the Kray brothers, being seduced into their world, and ultimately duped by the persona of 'lovable cockney rouges' in much the same way as the film's narrator.


 AESTHETIC: 2/2
The film's sense of time and place is very astute, largely down to a canny use of fashion and songs, including such genre-defining hits as I'm Into Something Good, Chapel of Love, Somethin' Stupid, and The Look of Love. The street sets, as well as the street decoration and CGI alterations of existing locals, is also very convincing while never being too over-stated or detracting. While I rarely comment on soundtracks, it's worth pointing out that singer/songwriter Duffy is well applied throughout the original score, just as she was hired for the similarly 60's-set The Boat That Rocked. Duffy has a voice that suits the period perfectly.

 INTENTION: 1/2
It's hard to guess exactly what  Brian Helgeland was hoping to achieve when he first put pen to paper; it's unlikely that he would have known then that his project would live or die by it's central performance. As a biopic, more than a few people have argued that Legend is selective with it's truths, as most biopics are in the attempt of making a story work on film: in reality (according to those who knew them best, lovers and enforcers alike), there was little between Reggi and Ronnie's temperament. In some claims, a jealous Ronnie has even been accredited with Frances' death, and it's widely accepted that the attempted assassination on Leslie Payne was agreed on jointly by both brothers, not simply the unhinged reaction of a distrustful Reggie... As a gangster film, Legend makes little attempt to break new ground, so if you're familiar with the genre (even if you're unfamiliar to the Krays) you'll be able to see the general trajectory of the film with ease. More than liberal traces of Scarface, Good-fellas and The Godfather are inherent in Legend's makeup- not simply because the story of the Krays demands it, but partly out of what feels like a lack of inventiveness.

FINAL SCORE: 8/10
Taken purely as a biopic Legend is, at best, shallow, and at worst in danger of poor taste. Taken simply as a gangster-flick, Legend is both conventional and uninspiring... However, Legend makes no claim to be either, and so taken as a slice of pure entertainment, a showcase for a bravura and avant-garde performance by Hardy, and an undeniably brazen calling card for everyone else involved (from the supporting cast, the filming crew and the art department) Legend is a roaring, swaggering and surprisingly nuanced success. Brian Helgeland, like the duel antagonists and protagonists of his film, may not have reached true greatness, but he has at least jumped two-footed into the arena and made his presence very known. Love it, hate it, but you can't ignore it.

"THIS IS MY GIFT, MY CURSE... WHO AM I? SPIDERMAN!"

Peter Parker (Spiderman)


A pointless bit of theorising. I don't often allow myself this. It doesn't serve any purpose...

But.

I think we've missed the opportunity for a perfect Spiderman film now-days. I've seen all the perfect elements come together, half realised, and drift apart.

Something I photoshopped up. Am I right?

For my money, the perfect Peter Parker, in terms of casting, demeanor, and how the character would fit realistically into a modern setting, has already been pulled off. Sadly, not in a Spiderman film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's portrayal of Dave Lizewski / Kick-Ass was bang on the money.

Emma Stone makes for a perfect Gwen Stacey, shame the Amazing Spiderman films couldn't do her character justice.

The suit itself has never looked better than in The Amazing Spiderman 2 (that's one hell of a design).

And lastly, can anyone think of a better casting call than Willem Defore as the Green Goblin? Sure, the suit / armor could have been miles better, but the casting itself? Perfect.

And who would I put in the directors chair? In my ideal world Alfons Cuaron would be a solid choice. His career so far involves the best of Harry Potter, Children of Men and Gravity. He understands budgets, character, and can serve up family-friendly and a way that doesn't trivialise or make the material stupid.

So there you have it. 'MY' Spiderman will never be...

The MCU alternative.

Admittedly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe now have the rights back for the Spiderman character, so Garfield is now out and relative unknown Tom Holland is set to take his place. Tom Holland looks to be a good fit (he's nearer the correct age, too), and the MCU does have a good track record, they're quite astute. Even their failures have been interesting... If anyone can do this character right, then surely it has to be Marvel themselves?

Watch this space.

ANT-MAN; Carlisle's Final Word

"My days of breaking into places and stealing shit are over! What do you need me to do?" Scott Lang

 "...I want you to break into a place and steal some shit." Hank Pym

I imagine when Paul Rudd was offered a lead role as a superhero, Ant-Man wasn't what he had in mind...

SYNOPSIS:

Down on his luck cat burglar Scott Lang is fresh out of jail, broke, and unable to see his little girl unless he can find a way to settle his outstanding alimony. However, little does he relaise he's an aging scientist's last hope of preventing high-tech weaponry from falling into the wrong hands. Under the tutelage of this scientist, as well as the older man's estranged daughter, Lang must don an experimental costume and become the Ant-Man.



SCRIPT 1/2

The script is an interesting thing, and it's as much a success as it is a failure. It manages to be witty, smart and self assured, always ready to poke fun at it's own (frankly) ludicrous premise, and revels in its own small-scale- as apparent in the marketing. Bravely it steers away from the typical Marvel climax of 'giant-things-falling-out-of-the-sky-and-endangering-the-world-or-city' in favour of a brawl through a little girl's bedroom- which manages to be dramatic and humorous all at once (Thomas the Tank Engine has never been so terrifying). See, for me, the success of the story was in it's intimate scale; sure, the world was technically in danger, but the drama which played out for the characters was personal; it was about families, children, broken relationships, and the heartbreak of parenthood. In a way that would seem oddly fitting, the larger-scale world-effecting issues feel less significant (or smaller), and the small-scale personal drama is played-up (made larger). I would suspect these elements were very much present in the Edgar Wright script- but more on that later.

So considering that, it would seem an odd thing it made such a ham-fisted attempt in other areas. Aside from the ever present nag that the very idea of Ant-Man is completely bonkers, the story itself was awfully contrived. The Marvel formula of advanced technology falling into the wrong hands has been so over-used now, and it's tiring having so many Marvel Cinematic World references and set-ups shoe-horned into what should be a stand-alone story. But most daunting here are the giant lapses in logic. Marvel films may be fantasy but they make sense in their own internal worlds. Unfortunately some of the plot-holes in Ant-Man are so glaring they prevented me from enjoying the many quirky pleasures of the film.

If the military could enlarge and control thousands of ants, would they really bother with a suit? 

The antagonist of the films is said to have had his mind warped by imperfect shrinking technology, yet we know as an audience that this can't be true because until half way through the film he hasn't perfected shrinking beyond accidentally turning things into jelly...

 And those explosives planted in the building during the climax? They were put in place knowing full well all the characters would still be inside the offices, and if not them, God knows how many innocent security guards and employees (after all, the main characters were hardly likely to warn everyone inside or alert the villain to their plans)...

PACE: 2/2

Like all the Marvel Studio films, this moves along at a fairly snappy pace, but unlike the majority of these other films, bloated behemoths over the 3 hour mark, Ant-Man is also a much shorter film, and this lends proceedings a sense of urgency missing from most blockbusters. This fast pace also deprives the audience time to consider the absolute ridiculousness of the plot, or the many plot holes that will begin to dog them as they leave their seats.



ACTING: 1/2

As with other recent Marvel efforts, most of the casting is top-notch. Note I use the word casting, rather than acting; it feels as though everybody plays a part rather than a character. I guess that's the distinction here, it's not about acting or about being believable, it's about entertainment. Everyone seems to be having a blast making the film, especially Michael Douglass, who steals all of his scenes as the curmudgeonly scientist (and inventor of the Ant-Man suit) Dr. Pym. Paul Rudd gives a good turn as the snarky cat-burglar with a heart forced to become the Ant-Man (although some of his dialogue feels a little forced), while Evangeline Lilly, playing Hope, Pym's estranged daughter, brings a certain spark and wit to an otherwise bland troupe. But like Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Iron-Man 1 and 2 (to mention but a few), the film's central villain is pretty weak. Corey Stoll, here playing the morally bankrupt Darren Cross, the ruthless protege of Dr. Pym, just comes across as made-for-TV-bland. He's bald, he's unhinged, he's rich, he wears a suit- he's pretty much a diet Lex Luther.


AESTHETIC: 1/2

Considering the budget Marvel Studios has at it's disposal, a lot of the film looked quite cheap, most notably the poor CGI used for the ants; they looked like something you'd see on a straight-to-DVD film, alongside titles "Sharknadeo" and "We are Omega". That's unforgivable considering the money involved, or how important the ants are to the story of Ant-Man! Having said that, the sound design, optics and focus-pulling used when the characters shrink is very, very effective. Familiar surroundings feel gargantuan- it genuinely feels like a tiny camera is being used to film a miniature little man, as opposed to someone just scaled down with computer effects.


INTENTION: 1/2

Well, you can't criticize it's noble intentions; Ant-Man strives to be an entertaining antidote to the usual high-steaks and large-scale-damage of other Marvel films, and for the most part it succeeds. It's rare to see a film with such a budget take genuine risks, or by straddling so many different genres all at once, but Ant-Man manages to be an endearing, if flawed, mash-up of superhero blockbuster, comedy and heist movie. It may not manage to fully pull-off it's intention, but it's a brave effort.
Having said that, in a lot of respects this is pretty much more of the same from Marvel Studios, and it suffers from the constraints of association with that cinematic background, while the almost patented witty-banter-with-big-explosins Marvel blue print is also showing signs of age.



FINAL SCORE: 6/10

Much was made of how Peyton Reed stepped up to direct this after Edgar Wright (he of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame, as well as Scott Pilgrim infamy) left the project after continual disagreements with Marvel Studios- despite the public support of Joss Whedon, the man responsible for shaping the quote/unquote Marvel Cinematic Universe... But, unlike most people imagined, Reed can hardly be said to have dropped the ball. Sure, it's not a perfect movie, but at this point it would be unfair to blame Reed for this, seeing how the real power behind the camera are Marvel Studios.
Ant-Man remains a lovable and gimmicky bag of tricks, but far from a satisfying whole, and while Wright's writing certainly still remains in the spine of the film, it's intriguing to contemplate how different his version might have been...

"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?