Mad Max: Fury Road

George Miller’s “Mad Max” franchise didn’t just make Mel Gibson a star – they completely evolved post-apocalyptic entertainment with their instinctual stunt work and remarkable look of an increasingly worried future. Thirty years after the last entry, the underwhelming “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome,” Miller finally returns to this deserted area for the largely-hyped 2015 “Mad Max: Fury Road,” recasting the protagonist in the gray appearance of Tom Hardy and increasing the stakes with promises of vehicular madness on a level corresponding with what modern CGI audiences have come to expect.

Brian Tallerico stated in his review, “From its very first scenes, “Fury Road” vibrates with the energy of a veteran filmmaker working at the top of his game, pushing us forward without the cheap special effects or paper-thin characters that have so often defined the modern summer blockbuster.” Miller hasn’t only returned with a new sequel in a money-making series. The man who reworked the rules of the post-apocalyptic action genre has returned to show younger filmmakers they’ve been uncertain in their attempts to be just like him.

“Who was more crazy? Me, or everyone else?” Tallerico said, “In “Mad Max: Fury Road,” Miller has pushed his Gilliam-esque vision of a world gone mad to its logical extreme.” The citizens in Max Roackatansky’s city are no longer just people scrounging for oil or power. They have been turned into animals of circumstance, either left with one dying need or left without any appearance of reason. “Fury Road” is a violent film, but the violent deeds in this world don’t feel like illogical action beings – they appear from not having many options or a firm sense of complete insanity. Miller’s new look of Max isn’t a warrior. Now he’s a man determined by the memories of past mistakes to do little more than survive. Tallerico is right when he mentioned, “He walks with the ghosts of those he couldn’t save, and his traveling companions have pushed him to the brink of sanity.”

While falling off this edge, Max is kidnapped and turned into a literal blood fighter for a wild fighter named (Nicholas Hoult), who serves the urges of his crazed master, Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, who also played the villain Toecutter in the original “Mad Max”). From the beginning, Miller gives no time to get a feel of this world or the story he wants to tell. Tallerico said, “The frame rate is accelerated, the editing is hyperactive, the bad guy speaks through a mask that makes half his dialogue indecipherable (shades of Hardy’s Bane from “The Dark Knight Rises”), and the horrific visions of Miller’s twisted future come fast and furious.” Immortan Joe is a barely-alive mental case, kept breathing by tubes connected to his face and his minions are similarly deformed half-humans with absolute names like Rictus Erectus (Nathan Jones) and The People Eater (John Howard).

One of Joe’s most notable fighters is a strong woman known as Imperator Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, who, as the movie starts, is leading a group from Immortan Joe’s fortress to the oil refinery Gastown when she goes off course. It turns out that Furiosa has kidnapped Joe’s “breeders,” the women he keeps prisoner (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoe Kravitz, Riley Keough, Courtney Eaton and Abbey Lee) in an effort to create a male successor. She’s taking them to “the green place,” to safety. Obviously, Joe sends his men after Furiosa – incluing Nux, who Max is still stuck to – and the remainder of “Mad Max: Fury Road” is nothing more than one long continued chase across the deadly desert. With the exception of one focus of dialogue, the film takes place almost completely on the run, speeding, chasing, bouncing, and exploding across Miller’s hot landscape.

Tallerico said, “As a reflection of more desperate times, Miller has updated the needs of his future world from commodities like oil to pure survival.” Max has been redone as a fighting, driving force, a man who “finds his own way,” moving forward in trying to outrun his past. Tallerico described Nux as “a brainwashed goon, a man-creature who believes that he will die and be reborn after sacrificing himself for a trip to Valhalla.” Max eventually gets into the role of the action hero, but, in one of his most dangerous moments, Miller gives the weight of the story to Furiosa, a woman who only has one thing that could give her that ray of hope in this ruined world – the next generation. Theron does undeniably the best work of her career in this film, cleverly assigning the drive in Furiosa’s soul in a way that runs the entire film. She does more with a burning look or tightened jaw than most actresses could with a page of dialogue. Tallerico said, “And one shouldn’t undervalue the empowerment message at the heart of this film—Eve Ensler, author of “The Vagina Monologues” consulted with Miller on the script—which suggests that women, as the creators of new life, will, inherently, always be the gender that holds hardest onto hope for the future.” Furiosa looks at the craziness of the male leadership she is under and decides that this is the breaking point. When one of Furiosa’s women goes into labor and still defends herself and her about to be born child (after being shot of course) it’s hard not to see “Fury Road” as an answer to the man nonsense that is always driving the action genre.

However, all of this doesn’t even suggest that the action here is lost in the message. Tallerico said, “The pacing, the sound design, the editing, the music (courtesy of Junkie XL and some of Joe’s freaks who play drums and electric guitars during the action), and even the emotional stakes are all so far above average that they make just about any other car-chase movie look like a quaint Sunday drive by comparison.” The first chase in “Fury Road,” as Joe’s men catch up to Furiosa and her female cargo, is one of the most remarkable action scenes in film history. This is just getting started. There’s no doubt in saying that, if you think something in “Fury Road” is the most edge-of-your-seat action stunt you’ve seen in years, you really need to only wait a few minutes to see something better. This is a movie where you keep thinking that its reached its peak and then, all of a sudden, that moment is left behind with no recollection.

From the first minute, Miller and his team do something that so many other filmmakers fail to do – they defined the geography of their action. Rather than simply shaking the camera around in the simple hopes of making tension, they keep giving the audience the overhead shots and clear physical heights of what’s happening and where they’re going. Then everything explodes. There are a handful of crashes, explosions, and flying bodies in “Fury Road,” and yet the movie never repeats itself, especially as the emotional moments increase with each segment. Miller knows when to let the pace go on neutral when it needs to, which is rare, and then he switches gears and bandages you to your seat.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is an action film about recovery and revolution. Tallerico is right when he says, “Never content to merely repeat what he’s done before (even the first three “Mad Max” have very distinct personalities), Miller has redefined his vision of the future yet again, vibrantly imagining a world in which men have become the pawns of insane leaders and women hold fiercely onto the last vestiges of hope. “Fury Road” would be remarkable enough as a pure technical accomplishment—a film that laughs in the face of blockbuster CGI parties with some of the best editing and sound design the genre has ever seen—and yet Miller reaches for something greater than technical prowess.” He holds upward the action template that he made with “The Road Warrior” and argues that Hollywood shouldn’t have been copying it for the past 30 years, they should have been building on it. “Fury Road” is a challenge to the entire generation of action filmmakers, insisting them to follow its overconfident path into the genre’s future and, like Miller, try their hardest to create something innovative.

Although I understand why Nostalgia Critic would say this is another chase movie, like “The Road Warrior,” I like that he started to appreciate the film, especially when he compared it to the classic Willie E. Coyote/Road Runner cartoons. The movie doesn’t rely too much on dialogue, but rather their strong visuals, riveting chase scenes, and great action. This is hands down the best in the franchise. If you have not seen this yet, you are missing out. Don’t read my review, go out and see it now. I promise you, you will be blown away by it, and I give this a high recommendation.

Now we have come to the end of “Mad Max Month.” I hope all of you enjoyed it and I hope that I recommended an excellent franchise for all of you. Wait until next month for another great action series, whose latest installment I saw not too long ago.

Suicide Squad

Well everyone, I came back from seeing the third installment in the “DC Extended Universe,” “Suicide Squad,” which came out at the beginning of the month. I will now let all of you know what I thought of the movie.

“In a world of flying men and monsters, this is the only way to protect our country.” These are the exact words for Amanda Waller’s decision to employ criminals to fight state security dangers in this adaptation of “Suicide Squad.” Played by Viola Davis, Waller is a tough, tenacious government employee who wants to wage war (symbolically and literally, at one point). After Superman’s told death (as shown in the end of “Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice”) she teams together these Arkham criminals to fight against meta-humans and beasts that won’t be defeated by human hands.

John Hanlon stated in his review, “In its opening moments, the feature oftentimes plays out like a music video introducing some of the main characters with distinct songs playing in the background for each character.” To start off, Joker’s girlfriend, Harley Quinn, played by the hot Margot Robbie (who appears to be channeling the cartoon Quinn from The Animated Series), is introduced with the song You Don’t Own Me. Deadshot (Will Smith), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Diablo (Jay Hernandez), Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) and Dr. June Moore/the Enchantress (the hot Cara Delevingne) are also introduced as part of Waller’s planned team, placed under the command of Colonel Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman). Also joining the team is Katana, played by Karen Fukuhara.

Waller’s plan eventually fails leading to Enchantress’ brother, Incubus, played by Alain Chanoine, being resurrected and starting pandemonium in Midway City.

I agree with Hanlon when he said, “Because this feature had the unenviable task of introducing so many important characters from DC comics, director/writer David Ayer was faced with a daunting task here. Unlike The Avengers (2012) — which featured characters that had already been introduced in stand-alone pictures, this film had to both introduce its main characters and bring them together very quickly.”

Seeing the character introductions are mostly positive, especially for Deadshot and Harley Quinn. Both of these characters get their own great stories with Quinn’s history also introducing the Joker, played by Jared Leto (who at times sound like he is imitating Mark Hamill but at other times Heath Ledger), an important character who is sadly not given enough screen time. Hanlon noted, “Also, Diablo gets a short but important back story that feels a bit rushed.”

There’s a lot to be liked in the performances of both Robbie and Smith, who are able to make sympathetic characters who are also crazy murderers. I agree with Hanlon on, “Robbie, who previously starred in The Wolf of Wall Street and The Legend of Tarzan, is the stand-out as she embodies a sadistic and endlessly eccentric character that will be hard to forget.” Deadshot, a heartless murderer who obviously loves his daughter, played by Shailyn Pierre-Dixon, is the more relatable one in the movie and it helps that Will Smith is famous for his father roles. Hanlon is right when he says, “Deadshot may be a killer but his instincts as an assassin are in constant competition with his capabilities as a father who wants his daughter to be proud of him.”

The film’s major drawback sadly is in the choice of villains. Hanlon mentioned, “With so many interesting protagonists (villains who are on the good side of this story) cut loose on society, one would’ve hoped that the monster that they face off against would be half as engaging. Instead, the villain is a spirit who takes over the body of a scientist and brings her dead brother’s spirit back to life in order to destroy society.”

Hanlon also noted, “The plot about an intelligent woman being inhabited by an ancient evil spirit feels similar to the story from the original Ghostbusters (1984) and the new reboot.”

Hanlon mentioned, “Additionally, Ayer’s work behind the scenes feels a bit discombobulated at times. Especially in the early scenes, there doesn’t seem to be an overriding structure to the proceedings. Instead, the plot bounces from scene to scene with no overarching momentum.”

“Suicide Squad” doesn’t deliver the excitement that it built up before the release date, however, there are enough engaging moments that fans should be able to enjoy it. Robbie and Smith are the best parts in the movie and you will want their characters to be the main focus in later entries. Ayer’s production is disorganized no doubt but that looks like it works with the characters put in the movie. These are damaged and irregular characters but the final result, they do a job well done. So does this movie.

It does what it planned to do with starting up the team and taking them on this mission together. You will want the sequels to continue this strong streak.

Even though I admit that this film isn’t one of the best of the year, I was really entertained by it. Doug Walker said this movie is like his “Moulin Rouge,” which I can agree with him on, since I share his thoughts on why I didn’t like “Moulin Rouge,” but I did enjoy the movie, like him. Whatever action scenes there are, they are great. There are some hilarious lines from every member of the team, and the best parts, hands down, are Will Smith, Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Even though Leto isn’t in the movie that much, for the parts he was in, he did a great job. He’s possibly the best Joker ever, but that can be debated. It may be hard to top Ledger, but Leto comes close.

Spoiler Alert: in a mid-credits scene, Bruce Wayne, reprised by Ben Affleck, meets with Waller, who agrees to protect her from the hate of Enchantress's evil plot in exchange for access to the government's files on the growth of the metahuman community.

I would say definitely check out this movie in the theaters. If you don’t want to, wait for it on DVD, but I suggest going to the theater, don’t listen to the bad reviews. Just watch the movie and decide for yourselves.

Thanks for joining in on my review of the next chapter in the DC Extended Universe, check in this coming Friday for the finale of “Mad Max Month.”

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome

“Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome,” released in 1985, is the third installment in the Mad Max series. Since the first movie was made on a low-budget with Australian money and starred a cast of newbies, “Beyond Thunderdome” was produced by American Studio Warner Bros. and starred not only returning and now famous star Mel Gibson, but also American singer Tina Turner, who co-starred and sang the opening and closing songs. This combination of money and production by a major studio gives the film a little more of a polished look, but is weaker than the previous two films in practically everything else.

Scott Nash stated in his review, “Although the timeline is again never made clear, general opinion, based on the novelization and interviews with the writers, have made it clear that the story begins some 13 years after The Road Warrior, which was set roughly 5 years after the original.” Max is still traveling through the desert on his own. After his stuff gets stolen, he ends up in Bartertown, a city powered by pig droppings where a fight for control is going on between Master Blaster (a technologically knowledge midget named Master (Angelo Rossitto) piggy-backed by a strong, but voiceless giant named Blaster (Paul Larsson)) and Aunt Entity (Tina Turner in a chain mail dress cut as far up as a PG-13 rating will allow). Nash mentioned, “Max gets caught up in their power struggle before finding himself in the desert where he meets up with the cast of Lord of the Flies in the more silly last half of the story.”

Nash goes on to say, “In order, I assume, to appeal to a broader audience and to suck in the teen audience, the filmmaker's opted to make this installment rated PG-13 instead of the R rating of the first two movies.” Because of this, the violence is brought down a lot and some cheap, cartoonish humor is installed. This is really noticeable in the final, and only, car chase. When Aunt Entity’s right-hand man, played by Angry Anderson, drives in front of the train/truck hybrid that Max is driving, Max crashes into the back of his man’s car, causing an explosion. However, instead of dying, he just lands on the front of the train covered in ashes. Nash is right when he says, “It's almost as if he's doing a Coyote impression from an old Road Runner cartoon.” Later, when the same man dies, the camera zooms in on his clenched fist. His arm tightens and flops before getting up long enough to give the middle finger, before finally dying.

Nash questions, “I wonder how much of the weakening of the film was caused by the death of producer Byron Kennedy, who died while location scouting for the film. He co-created the franchise with George Miller and reportedly Miller lost interest in making Thunderdome after the death of his friend, which is why George Ogilvie was brought on as director, where Miller had directed the first two. Miller gets a co-director credit because he staged the action sequences.”

Although this is the worst in the series, it still does have some funny scenes. It starts strong and up to the battle in the Thunderdome arena it’s properly funny. However, once Max is tied to a horse and is sent out into the desert, it starts to lose our interest. The kids are really annoying and from the story of their experiences seem to have been living out there for longer than the timeline allows them to. The city of Bartertown also looks like it has been around longer than the thirteen years would give them.

Gibson does another good job as Max, although the character looks a little flat this time, but that must have a lot of blame on the writing than his performance. Nash credits, “Turner wasn't actually as bad as I remember, but her mere presence does add a certain camp value to the proceedings.” An odd casting choice is bringing back Bruce Spence, who also was in “The Road Warrior. The reason why it’s odd is because he’s casted as a completely different character and no way did they try to make a disguise for his appearance.

The backstory for this sequel includes stories of nuclear holocaust, which contradicts the last two movies and interviews that George Miller had done before the release. Before this movie, the end of the world was always picturized as a general dying of society because of the shortage of fuel. The introduction to “Mad Max 2” describes it happening exactly that way and does not have any reference to a nuclear war. This doesn’t really hurt the story, but is revealing of the general mess in the way the movie was put together.

Since “The Road Warrior” felt like a nice addition of the first movie and actually was superior in its quality, “Beyond Thunderdome” is worse in every way. It looks like a huge studio trying to cash in on the success of this franchise. Nash ended his review by saying, “If the promised fourth film ever does get made (with Tom Hardy signed on to take over the part of Max), I only hope it's a return to its R-rated roots rather than a reprise of the quality of this one.”

Well, I got good news for you, Scott Nash. If you saw the film, which I’m sure you did, it’s actually the best of the series. If you want to know what I mean, stay tuned next Friday for the finale of “Mad Max Month.”

Star Trek Beyond

Alright online readers, the wait is finally over. Today, I went and saw the latest Trek movie, "Star Trek Beyond," released in July. Director Justin Lin brings his excellent action energy and a certain nostalgic value to the "Star Trek" series, even as he unboldly goes where a handful of people have gone before.

Owen Gleiberman stated in his review, "It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why director Justin Lin was handed the reins of the “Star Trek” series from the outgoing J.J. Abrams." Justin Lin, the director of four "Fast and Furious" films, is a masterful at making ships fly through space, and "Star Trek Beyond" has a few of the most spectacular shots ever seen in the series. Gleiberman said it best when he said, "What’s more, if you had to find a theme in the “Fast and Furious” films — apart from their real theme, which is that speed and destruction rock — it would be this: A motley crew of multiculti ego-driven auto pilots works best when they make themselves into a team." However, this is not until halfway through the movie of "Star Trek Beyond" when Lin showcases a part that truly seems to get his blood pumping.

We're in the broken forest of an unknown planet, where the Enterprise has crash-landed after being split in two by a swarm of metal space "bees." The villainous bees are controlled by Krall, played by Idris Elba, who Gleiberman describes as, "a dictator with the face of a lizard and the voice of a warlord and an attitude to match." He gets energy by literally absorbing the life out of humans, and he's out to conviscate a rock that was on board the Enterprise, an ancient clicking material he wants for evil (but unspecific) reasons. The crew of the Enterprise, separated on the planet, is trying to regroup, and now, finally, they have enough of a plan to engage in an attack. Captain Kirk gives the distracting acts, riding a motorcycle around Krall's forest headquarters, his motorcycle facade literally cloned multiple times. Meanwhile, a savage alien named Jaylah, played by the hot Sofia Boutella, whose, as Gleiberman puts it, "black-etched-on-white face makes her look like Darth Maul by MAC Cosmetics," gets into a fist fight with Krall, beating him with Martial Art kicks.

The part has that Lin twist, that overabundance of activity that gets you excited. Gleiberman says, "And that’s a good thing — or, at least, it’s good up to a point — because “Star Trek Beyond,” for all the addictive intensity of its visual flourishes, is the most prosaic and, in many ways, the least adventurous of the Abrams-era “Star Trek” outings. It’s a sturdily built movie that gets the job done, and it’s got a likable retro vibe: The fact that Kirk and his crew spend a good part of the film stranded, without recourse, gives “Star Trek Beyond” a wide-eyed, slightly clunky analog stasis that takes us right back to the spirit of the TV series." Like the show, it lets us have some time with cast members who you now think of has good friends. However, to say that the movie fails to give us something new would be putting it lightly. It really does look like a two-part episode, without one "Oh, wow!" saying from anyone, which could be why, until the jaw-dropping climax, it's more serious than exciting.

To be fair, a "Star Trek" movie (the 13th movie) can't be expected to redo the formula each time. Glieberman said, "Abrams already did that once, and he did it brilliantly, casting the series with such an acute eye for the inner qualities of every “Trek” crew member that you almost feel as if each character should come with a little book entitled “The Zen of Scotty,” “The Zen of Bones,” etc. Yet the dimension of the original series that turned fans into lifelong cultists is that it pushed and poked boundaries; it kept spinning your head." That's what Abrams attempted to do in his two films, and the underrated "Star Trek Into Darkness," though it looked like a retelling with "Trek" mythology, casting Benedict Cumberbatch as a young Khan who didn't completely resolve as the Khan of legend, was still a movie that took you on a evil space ride.

Gleiberman stated, "“Star Trek Beyond” might have been more accurately entitled “Star Trek Contained.” It’s got a very familiar, old-fangled, no-mystery structure, and that’s because it’s basically the “Star Trek” version of an interplanetary action film, with a plot that doesn’t take you to many new frontiers. But there’s plenty of chance to hang out with a cast that audiences have — rightly — come to love." On the planet, the crew members land in different places because they've escaped the crashing Enterprise ship in separate space pods. It's fun to watch Spock and Bones bond through their hostility. Or Scotty try to create his smart persona around the forceful Jaylah, the alien dominating female who calls him "Montgomery Scotty." Or, as Gleiberman stated, "Anton Yelchin’s Chekov simply be, in every scene, his ardently antic Chekov self, which allows us to revel in what an inspired job the late young actor did of making Chekov’s face match his heavily accented words, his eyes popping in comic communion with his vowels." The late Yelchin, a great actor (he is honored in the closing credits with simple "For Anton"), shrewdly disappeared inside this role, and in that very act of disappearance he was not like more for himself.

Conveniently, this planet has the remains of an old Federation ship, the U.S.S. Franklin, which our protagonist crew can recharge. From there, the fight goes to Yorktown, a Federation station, which Gleiberman says, "That’s like a gyroscopic steel-and-glass city that resembles an amalgam of the aristocratic satellite in “Elysium,” the city of the future in “WALL-E,” and an Apple store. It’s a lurching, multi-planed vertiginous place, and Lin stages the protracted final battle there like a gladiatorial contest suspended in the air." It's a part you won't soon forget.

What is forgettable, maybe, is everything else about the movie, which doesn't do a lot to move forward the "Trek" story as keep it going in place. "Star Trek Beyond" starts with Kirk and Spock, each having a private objective breakdown: Kirk from the threats of being removed as Captain of the Enterprise, and Spock from the knowledge that he might want to leave the Enterprise to become a Vulcan ruler, now that Ambassador Spock has died - a tribute to the late Leonard Nimoy, whom, as Gleiberman says, "Quinto inspiringly echoes in the hint of warmth masked by his impish ultra-deadpan. You can rest assured that this team will become a team again, because that’s the message of the movie: that in space (or maybe anywhere), a crew of quirky oddballs beats a scaly megalomaniac every time. But that’s kind of a lesson that we already knew." "Star Trek Beyond" is a kind of entertaining fanbase, but one wishes that the next "Star Trek" movie will have everything in its power to boldly go where no "Star Trek" movie has gone before.

At the end of the movie, when it states this movie is dedicated to the memory of Nimoy and Yelchin, I applauded and had quite a few people join in. After the movie, I had the most surreal conversation with a family that I walked out of the theater with. The parents stated how the cast of this movie reminded them of the original cast from the 60s show and how well they imitated them. I told them I never saw the show, but they were surprised I knew the names of the cast, and they recommended it. We talked about how Yelchin died in a car accident, similar to how Paul Walker sadly died, and they had mentioned that (I believe) their son was in a car accident. He was in a five week coma, recovered, but sadly has his speech slowed down. However, they are thankful to God that he at least is alive, has his strength and is strong, even though he has trouble getting his thoughts together since they come out jumbled, but he is luckily back on his feet and is lucky to be alive.

You should see this movie. If you did not like how the first one restarted the series and the second one felt like a retelling of the Khan story, this one tells a new story. However, it's not a completely innovative story, it's a story that has been told in other movies as well. Still, the movie is not a complete waste of time and you will be engaged. My cousin dubbed this "Star Trek: The Fast and the Furious." Rightfully so since Lin directed this and four of the "Fast and Furious" movies. Go to the theater and see it, you'll enjoy it.

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto have signed contracts to appear in a fourth "Star Trek" movie. Last month, Abrams confirmed they are planning a fourth movie and said that Chris Hemsworth would reprise his role as Kirk's father, George, the same role he played at the beginning of the first movie. Later in July, Paramount confirmed that Hemsworth along with most of the cast from this movie, producers Abrams and Lindsey Weber, and writers J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay will come back. Abrams also stated that Anton Yelchin will not be recasted. My cousin stated that Abrams does not like "Star Trek," but is a huge "Star Wars" fan, like me. The sad part is that Abrams wants complete control of "Star Wars," including the movies, shows, merchandise, the works. Disney actually came to him about that, which is sad, because I feel like Abrams will keep retelling the same story from the Original Trilogy. If he does, I may not want to see the movies, and I won't like that.

Now we have ended "Star Trek Month." I want to thank everyone for their patience until I finally got around to reviewing the latest movie, as it was difficult to find a day to go see it. I have finally seen it, and I am happy. Stay tuned this Friday for the third installment in "Mad Max Month."

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior

“Mad Max 2” (released in the USA as “The Road Warrior”), released in 1981, is a film of pure action, of dynamic energy centered on the simplest possible tale of a plot. It has a look of a violent future world, but it doesn’t make that look with characters and dialogue. It would rather dive headfirst into one of the most ruthlessly bellicose movies ever made. Roger Ebert said in his review, “I walked out of "Mad Max 2" a little dizzy and with my ears still ringing from the roar of the sound track; I can't say I "enjoyed" the film, but I'll hardly forget it.”

The movie takes place at a time in the future when civilization has fallen, anarchy and violence rule in the world, and traveling bands of bandits kill each other for the few remaining gas stations. The cars of these future fighters are leftovers from the time we currently live in now. Ebert listed, “There are motorcycles and semi-trailer trucks and oil tankers that are familiar from the highways of 1982, but there are also bizarre customized racing cars, of which the most fearsome has two steel posts on its front to which enemies can be strapped (if the car crashes, the enemies are the first to die).”

The road warriors of the title take their costumes and codes of conduct from a search sale of legends, myths and genres: They look and act like the biker gang from the 1960s, samurai warriors, kamikaze pilots, street-gang members, cowboys, cops, and racecar drivers. They hardly have any dialogue. The movie’s protagonist, Max, might have 200 words. Max is reprised by Mel Gibson, an actor who studied in an Australian school and starred in “Gallipoli.” Before that, he made “Mad Max” for the makers of “Mad Max 2,” and that film was a low-budget precursor to this spectacular of action and violence.

Max’s role in “Mad Max 2” is to act like how some sort of a heroic cowboy might have in a classic Western. He encounters a small band of people who are trying to protect their supplies of gasoline from the attacks of warriors who have them cornered. Max agrees to drive a tanker full of gasoline through the surrounding warriors and take it a few hundred miles to the coast, where they all hope to find safety. After this statement is made with a great amount of symbolism, ritual and violence (and snot so much dialogue that sometimes we have to guess what’s happening), the movie arrives at its true braveries.

The main drive in “Mad Max 2” is an unbelievably well-made chase part that takes up the last third of the film, as Max and his semi-trailer drive through a rampage of everything the villains can throw at them.

Ebert mentioned, “The director of "Mad Max 2," George Miller, compares this chase sequence to Buster Keaton's "The General," and I can see what he means. Although "The General" is comedic, it's also very exciting, as Keaton, playing the engineer of a speeding locomotive, runs an endless series of variations on the basic possibilities of two trains and several sets of railroad tracks. In "Mad Max 2," there is basically a truck and a road. The pursuers and defenders have various kinds of cars and trucks to chase or defend the main truck, and the whole chase proceeds at breakneck speed as quasi-gladiators leap through the air from one racing truck to another, more often than not being crushed beneath the wheels.”

The special effects and stunts in this movie are amazing. “Mad Max 2” goes on a short list, which includes “Bullitt,” “The French Connection,” and the truck chase in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” as those that are the great chase films of modern years.

What is the point of the movie? Ebert advises, “Everyone is free to interpret the action, I suppose, but I prefer to avoid thinking about the implications of gasoline shortages and the collapse of Western civilization, and to experience the movie instead as pure sensation.” The filmmakers have created a fictional future. It goes along with its special rules and values, and we experience it. The experience is scary, sometimes disgusting, and (if truth be told) exciting. This is very masterful filmmaking, and “Mad Max 2” is a movie like no other.

Anyone who has seen this movie will clearly tell you that it’s better than the first one. Whereas the first one was a low-budget exploitation flick turned revenge story at the end, this one is a chase movie and portrayed it wonderfully with how Max is trying to help these people run from a gang of people who want their gasoline through a series of great chase sequences. It was the first movie to give Max his style of being in the desert and focusing on the loner that is Max. Definitely check this one out.

Sadly, with how great these movies got, in comes the third flick which is weird, bizarre, and no one’s favorite…scratch that, Nostalgia Critic likes it. Just brace yourselves next week for the third entry in “Mad Max Month.”

Mad Max

For this month, I was thinking of talking about one of the franchises that depicts an apocalyptic future, “The Mad Max Series.” I’m really excited to look at this, so let’s jump right in.

In 1979, the cinematic world was right in the middle of revival of Australian films, a time period that was dubbed “Australian New Wave.” Coming in on the peak of this movement was “Mad Max,” the debut of director George Miller’s leather-wearing, blacktop-melting road epic that started Mel Gibson’s career as an international film actor. Budgeted at less than $500,000, “Mad Max” had grossed $100 million worldwide and started a franchise that is still going to this day with “Mad Max: Fury Road,” which will be the final film I look at.

Actually, it’s safe to say that 1979 would have been that this film would just crash and burn. Dave Trumbore stated in his review, “First-time feature director Miller was, up until this point, an emergency room doctor exposed to all sorts of violent injuries and deaths. It was through his interest in film that Miller met up with amateur filmmaker Byron Kennedy at a summer film school, where they formed a partnership that would lead to massive success with Mad Max.” Pairing up with first-time screenwriter James McCausland, Miller and Kenney then went to casting the movie with new and upcoming actors completely innovative to being in movies. With all of these newbies both behind and in front of the camera, “Mad Max” had every reason to bomb. How did it become the most profitable film these many years later?

Trumbore mentioned that, “The films of Australian New Wave were characterized by a few traits: a relatively fresh vitality that was absent in films before this era, a penchant for capturing vast open spaces within the frame, the suddenness of violence, scenes of intimacy, and a straight-ahead narrative style of storytelling.” “Mad Max” had all of these. Trumbore said, “Organic energy infuses both the law-enforcing members of the Main Force Patrol and the chaotic agents of the scavenging Acolytes, unfettered by stilted dialogue or claustrophobic sets. Miller’s vision and cinematographer David Eggby’s camerawork captured the vast, arid landscape of the Australian highways, a setting that proved perfect for the post-apocalyptic dystopian story. While the scenes of tender loving are outnumbered by those that are voyeuristic or downright violent, it’s the portrayal of the world’s worst instances of road rage that really set Mad Max apart.”

The film itself gives about no exposition for audiences, choosing instead to start us off with only this sentence: “A few years from now…” After that, audiences are basically pondering what could follow on their own. Trumbore said, “Personally, I rather enjoy this slow-burn approach to storytelling which allows the plot to play out in its own time.” What that out of the way, modern audiences might find the pacing too slow and the film not having exposition confusing. Trumbore said, “The details of the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max may be lost on those who only view the first film in the series, but I like to think that the classic tale of a lawman out for vengeance against those who murdered his friends and family is easily grasped by viewers, no matter the year they view it.”

Before we even meet the protagonist, we are introduced to the film’s two fighting groups: the policemen of the Main Force Patrol and the criminal members of the Acolytes. The main antagonist, nicknamed the Nightrider, played by Vincent Gil, has killed a novice officer while escaping police custody. He also steals the officer’s Pursuit Vehicle, and with his girlfriend, played by Lulu Pinkus, they are chased by cops on a high-speed chase. Things are looking bad for the MFP until they call in their top cop, Max Rockatansky, played by Gibson. The fast-paced chase soon ends in a fireball that kills the Nightrider and his girlfriend. This is not only a great start to the world of “Mad Max,” it also serves as a substance for the conflict that slowly progresses between the MFP and Acolytes for the next 90 minutes of high-speed action.

However, “Mad Max” does not lack a sense of humor, a twisted and often black humor obviously, but humor nonetheless. There are strange spontaneous moments spread throughout the film: Max’s wife Jessie (Joanne Samuel) randomly playing the saxophone, their only son Sprog (Brendan Heath) playing with Max’s revolver, Charlie’s (John Ley) mechanical voice box, and the Acolytes’ spur-of-the-moment dancing to name a few. Without these moments of humor and absolute eccentricity, the film easily could have transferred into a miserable and hopeless drag. However, many critics at that time received it this way, and not without good reason.

Much of the film follows the MFP using their limited resources to luck up the Acolytes, but a small amount of courage on the part of the victims allow the villains to get away clean, even when the law has them firmly in grasp. When the last leftovers of justice eventually fail the MFP, Captain “Fifi” Maccafee, played by Roger Ward (who likely gave as the stylistic predecessor of the rest of the series’ leather fathers and S&M setups) tells his officers to do whatever they can to kill this gang, as long as the paperwork is clean. However, when Max’s partner, played by Steve Bisley, gets burned alive, the MFP’s best driver retires before he meets a similar doing.

Max may have put some distance between himself and the violent of the MFP’s responsibilities in order to spend more time with his family, but the roads have become significantly uncontrolled, the same violence spreading out across the country. The Acolytes manage to find Max by a saddened twist of fate, an accident that ends with the motorcycle gang riding down Jessie and Sprog, permanently disfiguring and disabling Jessie, and killing Sprog. It’s this heart-breaking moment that pushes Max way too far. His drive for vengeance takes him over, costing him a damaged leg and a broken arm, but Max soon disassembles the Acolytes and looks over the deaths of Toecutter (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and Johnny the Boy (Tim Burns).

However, to what end? What are we to take from the conclusion of “Mad Max” except that unruliness is the avoidance nature of mankind? If tragedy is able to decrease the most honorable of us to our most deadly state, then what hope is there for rebuilding civilization after the defeat? While it’s easy to criticize “Mad Max” for this miserable outlook supported by the film’s final act, it’s must more encouraging to know that following films explore this dual nature of man. Is Max broken beyond the part of redemption, or is he still able to make meaningful relationships and become one again?

All of this will be told next week in the second entry of “Mad Max Month.” In the meantime, if you haven’t seen this film, do so. You will love it, I promise you. It’s really heavy and emotional, but it’s still riveting and engaging, making it a joy ride from beginning to end.