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.

Galaxy Quest

Online readers, I did not get a chance to see the new “Star Trek” movie before today, but I might this weekend, although I cannot say for sure. However, I’m not going to leave all of you out in the dust today, so I will talk about a certain “Star Trek” like movie called “Galaxy Quest,” released in 1999.

Whether you love “Star Trek” or laugh at it, you’re about to be in luck, because this comedy called “Galaxy Quest,” a likeable comedy that at the same time manages to parody those popular futuristic space shows and comedy the same aspects that have made them so sturdy.

“Galaxy Quest” repeats one single joke, about a cast of unsuccessful actors from a canceled television series who are recruited by some naïve intergalactic aliens to help them in a problem with a rough, war-loving villain who has annihilated their entire species. If “Galaxy Quest” never achieves consistently unsteady heights as it plays out its combination of knowing satire and heroic adventure, it nevertheless keeps its story firmly in order, gives a few honest laughs, moves fast, if not at warp speed, and our protagonists are a talented cast.

The cast includes Tim Allen as the self-centered Jason Nesmith. To his masses of fans, he is Commander Peter Quincy Taggart, of the famous catchphrase “Never give up; never surrender.” Sigourney Weaver, so granger to fighting with creepy extraterrestrials, plays Gwen DeMarco, known to her fans as Lieutenant Tawny Madison, the delightful communications officer aboard Taggart’s ship, Protector. We also have the late Alan Rickman is Alexander Dane, who sadly remembers that he once played Richard III at a time before he tried out to be casted as the Spock-like mortal Dr. Lazarus.

These actors and Tony Shalhoub and Fred Kwan, alias Teach Sergeant Chen, and Daryl Mitchell as Tommy Webber, the navigator Lieutenant Laredo, have been reduced to signing autographs at fan shows for $15 per photo and cutting ribbons at supermarket openings when destiny (directed by Dean Parisot from a script written by David Howard and Robert Gordon) interferes.

Lawrence Van Gelder stated in his review, “In a scene that skewers the ubiquitous ''Star Trek'' fan conventions, as the testy, disheartened crew copes with costumed cultists, minutiae-obsessed teenagers and giggling groupies, Nesmith-Taggart is approached by a group of odd creatures he assumes are fans. He dismisses their monotonous babble.”

The next day, after he wakes up on the floor in his family room, hung over after a night of drinking alcohol alone, they fly him off to what he thinks is another re-enactment: a negotiation as Taggart with the villain Sarris, played by Robin Sachs, on behalf of the friendly Thermians. However, when Jason is amazingly returned, he realizes that he has been aboard a real spaceship.

It appears that the Thermians, led by Mathesar, played by Enrico Colantoni, believe the courage and principle-filled “Galaxy Quest” television episodes they have watched to be real historical documents and have wanted Commander Taggart to help them.

“Alexander,” Taggart said to the once and future Dr. Lazarus after he returns to the mission and joins his old crew, “this is the role of a lifetime.”

Now they are off, joined – in one of the film’s best comic formations – by Guy Fleegman, played by Sam Rockwell, now a convention organizer but once an unclear little player who died a quick death in episode 81. Gelder stated, “Throughout the adventure, as the heroes do battle with Sarris and his minions, encounter cannibalistic space creatures who resemble children, face off against assorted monsters and other perils while standing between the Thermians and extinction, Fleegman remains convinced that being an unknown actor, he is fated by the laws of scriptwriting to perish once more.”

In the dry comic background that now goes out over much of planet Earth, “Galaxy Quest” may not be a testament to the genre, but it gives a ray of hope for the future.

I saw this in the theaters in 1999, and I absolutely loved it. I thought it was a funny movie and it was thoroughly enjoyable. I highly recommend everyone to go out, rent the movie and see it since I honestly think that you will enjoy it.

When you think about it, this movie is very reminiscent of what happened to “Star Trek.” After how much of a critical and commercial disappointment “Star Trek Nemesis” was and how bad the short-lived “Star Trek Enterprise” was and cancelled after three seasons, Trekkies did not have anything “Star Trek” related to look forward to in movies and shows for about six-seven years. Now thanks to J.J Abrams rebooting the movies and a new “Star Trek” show coming out, Trekkies can be happy to watch their favorite franchise now and not only look forward to the conventions. Like I already stated, you have got to see this movie because you will get a good laugh out of it and it’s a great action-packed comedy.

Just sit put everyone because I will try to see the new “Star Trek” movie this weekend. If not, I will try and see what time next month I will check the movie out. “Star Trek Month” is not over yet, but is going overtime until I see the new movie.

Star Trek into Darkness

With the success J.J. Abrams had with his 2009 “Star Trek” remake, in 2013, he released the sequel, “Star Trek into Darkness.”

Tom Meek started his review out by saying, “I now know why Paramount was so tight about letting the press get an advance peek at the second installment of J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the Star Trek enterprise; there’s a huge reveal in the middle of “Star Trek Into Darkness” that will have Trekkie loyalists either in rapture or pandemonium.”

Meek continued he review by stating, “That aside, the 2009 release of Abrams’ series resurrection hit a nasty snag here in Boston when the Globe ran a review more than 24 hours before the embargo date the studio set and expected the media to respect. It was a four-star review, but you could see people at the studio and the PR firms here in town that were handling the press leaping from the windows.”

Getting back to this sequel. Many sci-fi franchises – including “Star Wars,” “Alien” and the main theater launch of “Star Trek” – hit their highest peak with the second installment (“The Wrath of Khan,” “Aliens” and “The Empire Strikes Back”). Not so much here, but it’s close. Meek mentioned, ““Darkness” has a lot more action and twists than the 2009 film, but while that film was hampered by setup and backstory, it’s addled by too much circumvolution and plots within plots. It’s great to see how it intertwines with longstanding Trek lore, making connections that hit with sudden realization and nostalgia, but I’m not entirely convinced all the plot threads that begin here tie neatly into the Trek future we already know.”

At the source of Abrams’ brilliant rebooting, beyond the smart and well-measured use of eye-pleasing special effects, is the inspired casting of Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as the younger Kirk and Spock. They’re perfect younger selves, but maybe the most accurate incarnation is Karl Urban as “Bones” McCoy. His inflection and mannerisms are mysterious to a creepy point.

At the start, the principals and crew of the Enterprise have yet to land their “five-year mission” show. They get a test run, during that they can’t interfere with intelligent original extraterrestrials. Meek noted, “The mission leads them to a wondrous planet bristling with red trees and inhabited by alabaster humanoids with big black saucer eyes still at the spear and papyrus stage, and Kirk, in trying to save them and Spock from a catastrophic volcano eruption, exposes the Enterprise to the Neolithic newbies who have a “Chariots of the Gods” moment and embrace the iconic space vessel as a deity.”

Back on Earth, Kirk is in so much trouble for the violation, but a terrorist bombs Starfleet’s record in London and afterwards attacks headquarters in San Francisco. Kirk’s misbehaviors are a sudden non-starter as the man behind the attack turns out to be one of Starfleet’s own men – with the rebellious gone scoundrel, James Harrison, played by a frightening Benedict Cumberbatch, being no ordinary insider. He’s a specialist in special weapons and everything Klingon and, as the icing on the cake, he has super blood as well. (If you want to know exactly what that means, or to say any more, would really be a spoiler alert.)

A quick meeting with Command and Kirk gets his ship back and goes after Harrison, who’s now situated on an abandoned planet inside Klingon jurisdiction. It’s there that matters become complicated and political, which you could say is redundant. Gears involving 72 suspect photon torpedoes, the destruction of the planet Vulcan and a warlike admiral, played by a skinny but ready Peter Weller, winning at the helm begin to spin, and you can throw in the sociable Mr. Scott as well, as he gets a pink slip and, according to Meek, “becomes a barfly.”

You can’t blame Abrams and his team of (three) writers for their motivation, but maybe a wider departure into the unknown might have produced greater success. Overall the production is top notch, crisp and adrenaline rushed (which you can see in IMAX and 3D, whichever theater you go to and how much you can pay). There is never any disappointment, but there are so many last-second death tricks that by the time you get to Abrams’ fast-paced finale you might be tired and need to take a break. Meek credited, “The tempo’s off, and there could have been more quiet moments between the rocket shots to let the characters spar and evolve like there were in Abrams’ last go at Kirk & Co.” The love triangle between Spock and Uhura with Kirk may be where the film spent the most money on minus special effects.

Perhaps what the promising wonder behind the camera needed was a friendly reminder that this is James Kirk we’re watching and not James Bond.

In the end, as good of a movie this might be, it felt like a mediocre remake of “The Wrath of Khan.” Especially in the last act, like in the final 15 minutes. I would say check it out, especially since it’s not half bad, but bear in mind, you will be noticing that a lot.

Alright everyone, if I don’t get a chance to see the new movie before this Friday, check in to see my review on a “Star Trek” spoof which is actually pretty funny.