A Trip To The Movies: Review – “Mad Max: Fury Road 3D” 5.17.15

I’m not sure how many directors have gone on to make a reboot or remake of their original films. Then comes in writer/director George Miller, who, in 1979, made the original “Mad Max” (1979), and its subsequent sequels – 1981’s “Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior” and 1986’s “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” (1986). Here we are thirty years later, and Miller presents us with his 4th installment of the series. I have to admit, when I first heard about this film I was very reluctant, as I’m not usually one for remakes, redos, reboots, or whatever you want to call them. Then I found out that it was going to be helmed by the original writer/director of the series, and after seeing a trailer way back in January after “American Sniper” I thought to myself “wow, this looks like something that has some serious potential”. I also thought either they did a really good job with the trailer and that it looked like it could be the next great action movie, or it could wind up like something more akin to Miller’s 3rd installment – a film held sacred but not by anyone I know other than its deepest admires of the series – “Beyond Thunderdome”. Which after the groundbreaking innovative first and second installments within the series, frankly put, should never have been made. What also intrigued me which I don’t usually follow was the rumor mill from the set – stars Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy were at each others’ throats, Hardy was reportedly very difficult to work with on set (not the first time I’ve heard this), and that the filming process took much longer than usual for a film to complete. However, after having recently revisited the first and second installments in my anticipation for the newest, that and its great reception coming out of Cannes last week and glowing reviews that came in at the end of last week, all but pretty much sealed the deal for me. My anticipation for it plus the bar were set high.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” starts off with a bit of back story of shots in black and white, similar to how “The Road Warrior” did, providing us with some background into how the film’s setting of a future-esque Australian desert wasteland came to be. Also, similar to “The Road Warrior”, natural resources are scarce, particularly that of gasoline. A philanthropist by the name of “Immortan Joe” employs a young woman named Furiosa (played by Charlize Theron – more on her to come) to take an armored big rig truck across the barren Australian desert to collect gasoline. Meanwhile the newest and first Max in the quadrilogy to feature anyone other than Mel Gibson, played by the always wonderful Tom Hardy, is caught in middle of the whole thing and is taken prisoner by the “War Boys”, Joe’s army, and is imprisoned to act as a blood donor for one of the War Boys (Nicholas Hoult – the young boy, now obviously much older and almost unrecognizable, from 2002’s “About A Boy”). The action really picks up when Furiosa veers off course with Joe’s five wives on board, setting off a spectacular chase scene (or shall I say chase movie) with other contributing gangs following their trail. Max is eventually freed and steals Furiosa’s rig, but the truck is soon disabled and Max and Furiosa butt heads as to whether or not she is going to allow him to carry on with her and Joe’s 5 wives on board. Though Max proves himself as a force to be reckoned with, and the two rebels band together across an action packed, visually spectacular high-octane thrill ride, fighting of the legions upon legions of Joe’s army while doing so.

To start, I’ll say that this is maybe the best action movie that has come out post-2000 (sorry “The Bourne Trilogy”, this one ups you in every department). It starts off with an absolute chaotic and balls to the wall roller-coaster that grabs a hold of you from its first sequence and doesn’t let up until the end credits role. It’s the greatest example I’ve seen so far of a film’s original creator, taking their original concept and story, and redoing it, the way it should have been done to begin with, for more contemporary audiences who may or may not be familiar with the original trilogy. I haven’t seen a movie with this much energy, this much velocity, and this much non-stop action since Gareth Evans’ “The Raid: Redemption” (2011), a film until seeing this film I would have labeled the best action movie of this century. But this movie goes deeper in that in almost every angle from an action film standpoint. I couldn’t help but think of Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” (1998), and the opening sequence where they storm the beaches of Normandy. Now imagine that level of visceral action and continue it throughout an entire duration of a 2 hour film. It’s a hyperbolic comparison I know. But one that seemed to enter my brain throughout. The film is also perfectly cast – with Hardy playing the epitomized loner. A man whose actions clearly speak louder than his words. Then there’s Theron in a role that puts her in the same echelon as say someone like Sigourney Weaver in the Alien quadrilogy (1979-1992). Bringing a nice blend of post fem attitude along with its several other sub-genres. Resembling something of that of a post-feminist action film, punk-western (and I really have to emphasize the futuristic punk look and vibe of the film), and post-apocalyptic road-rage chase-thriller. Lastly, I should point out its dazzling use of 3D in a film that’s a breathtaking visual splendor, with every burn, crash, and explosions coming off the screen at you. In fact, it’s the best use of the format that I’ve seen since Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity (2013) and really deserves to be seen as such, as I can’t imagine it being half the immersive experience it would had I of seen it otherwise. This is about as high-octane and thrilling of an action movie you’re bound to see all year, which also happens to be the very best in what the action genre has produced for us in as far back as I can remember. And one can only imagine that writer/director George Miller is sitting back and marveling at his creation in what can undoubtedly be considered the best in the series of “Mad Max” films to date.

in 3D [A-]

in 2D or any other format you choose to see it in other than the following [>B+]

A Trip (Back) To The Movies: Review – “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)

I found it interesting that in the 100 or so+ reviews I’ve written since this blog’s inception in August of last year that I’ve not once discussed or shared how I feel about the works of the most important filmmaker of the past 50 years, Steven Spielberg. It’s probably because well, I can’t say I’m that big a fan of his as guys like him and George Lucas of the “Star Wars” films were single-handedly responsible for the death (I know that’s a big word) of the Golden Age of cinema, the 1970’s, and are noted for giving birth to the rise of the popcorn fare summer blockbusters which ultimately led to the art of film itself becoming commercialized. However one could say film has always been “commercialized” in a sense if go all the way back to the early days of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. Where the artistic side of the film was taken out and reduced to a mere form of entertainment. Though never was this contrast more apparent in the “change” from art film to that of the more mainstream that occurred towards the end of the seventies and early eighties with films like “Star Wars” and “The Indiana Jones” movies. Both hugely successful franchises that made a large imprint in terms of cinema history. And I deeply admire and respect both filmmakers for their vision and for the way in which they revolutionized the art form of film itself.

But if you look at the rather large filmography of Steven Spielberg (54 films and counting) and take a deep, hard analytical look at them, you’ll see why he’s the most important filmmaker of the latter half of the 20th century. And what interests me the most is more than any other filmmaker maybe ever, is the way in which he has the ability to straddle the line between commercial film and much more personal work, which to me is the most commendable attribute about the guy. I’ve always been a much bigger fan of the latter kinds of films that he’s done – films like “The Color Purple” (1985), “Empire of the Sun” (1987) “Schindler’s List” (1993 – a film I consider to be one of my top 5 favorite films of all time), “Amistad” (1997), “Saving Private Ryan” (1998), and “Munich” (2005). I’ve always favored these films over his more commercially viable films like the “Indiana Jones” series, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” (1982), “Hook” (1991), “Jurassic Park” (1993), “War of the Worlds” (2005), etc. The latter being all great works in their own right but with a considerable amount of mainstream appeal. While the former, seemed to be more personalized works that were deeply important to him as a filmmaker. And at least from my background as a student of film, are the kinds of films that I have a tendency to admire a lot more.

Within this large cannon of films Spielberg has made within his long and varied career are two of what I consider to be his best films are the ones that seem to be able to tow this “straddle the line” concept between mainstream and art film that I mentioned above. That being the enormously successful and influential “Jaws” (1975) which is really the first film that put him on the map and made him an almost household name. And his follow-up, this film, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977), both of which stay within a commercial context but showcase Spielberg the filmmaker’s more artistic side. While both films are very entertaining in their own respect, they’re also impeccably done from an artistic standpoint. I learned this first hand when I watched “Jaws” for the first time in high school at the guidance of a teacher of film. It was one of the seminal works in film that made me almost never look at the art form the same way again. And hit me on such a guttural level that putting it into words would be a bit too much of a daunting task to describe in words.

“Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, while a much different kind of film in terms of genre than “Jaws”, is coincidentally not only his follow-up film to that but also my third favorite behind both it and “Schindler’s List”. It has been on my bucket list for quite some time now of movies that I chase to see on the big screen if given the opportunity. And boy was I excited when I saw that one of our local theaters in town was releasing it as a one-week engagement.

What’s so great about CEOTTK is that with the exception of maybe Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) it was the first film to deal with the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. At least on the same kind of scope and level as that film. As I watched the film this time around on the big screen closely, I came to the realization of just how well executed it is from almost every single film-making component. The character and acting of Richard Dreyfuss as your simple-minded Joe Schmoe, who, after an encounter with a UFO, goes on the ultimate personal quest searching for answers is both compelling and thoroughly engaging throughout. As is its spectacular special effects and light show, which had my jaw gaping to both hear John Williams’ terrific score and see its astonishing visual imagery projected onto the big screen, with a story that produces both an undeniably compassionate and human one with an emotional core about an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances.

I also love the film’s timelessness and it’s appeal to both adolescents and adult thinkers alike. And more than any other Spielberg work, it feels deeply definitive in both its style and substance as well as being iconic and timeless. Finally, in what is maybe one of the single most greatest climaxes in film history – the alien mother ship sequence, is a technical delight, which had me looking up at the screen marveling collectively in awe at the brilliance of what I was seeing. This is one of the best Science Fiction films of all time that also works equally well as a thriller, and is a glimpse into the mind of Spielberg’s psyche, whose greatest gift as a filmmaker has always been his ability to grasp a hold of his viewers and allow them access to be able to marvel and wonder at the possibilities of the infinite.

[A]