Movie Review Repost -- Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Sorry, guys. Once again I've got nothing new. But please understand that I've not been lazy; I'm currently working on a bunch of new stuff for this blog (including some stuff for a new topic I've not yet covered on Anachronarchy before) and hopefully it will be ready for next Saturday. For now I guess it's time for another movie review repost, this time of 2015's Mad Max: Fury Road. This was a fun movie to watch, and while I haven't seen it since, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing again. Enjoy.

   I have to confess, I was probably the only person on the world who didn't know what Mad Max: Fury Road was going to be like. Upon viewing the trailer it looked to me like happy hour in the Australian Outback. As it turns out, that's this movie in a nutshell. And it delivers what it promises.

   Mad Max is a crazy, over-the-top adventure that exists in a deranged heavy metal fantasy world. One could easily imagine Motörhead or Judas Priest coming from that guitar-playing dude. Yeah, one of the cars is loaded with tons of amps and has a guitarist strapped to it. And that's just one example; there's lots of bizarre characters and outlandish but still cool-looking cars. I guess I should talk about the plot. It takes place in a post apocalyptic world where water and gas are sought-after goods and where most of the population is crazy with radiation poisoning (I guess). Max and Imperator Furiosa team up to try to escape the clutches of the evil cult leader Immortan Joe. This is a film that is relatively light on plot and dialogue, but heavy in the action department. When people tell you that Mad Max is one long action scene, they're not far from the truth.

   The film showcases some great acting across the board. Tom Hardy is great as the level-headed, yet tormented title character who is primarily concerned with his own survival. But Charlize Theron steals the show as the grim, determined Furiosa, who is arguably the film's real main character. She doesn't speak much more than Max, but remains just as compelling.

   Mad Max should also be commended for its outstanding cinematography. Every shot looks great, and you can easily tell what's going on. I've heard that this movie used a lot of practical effects and stunts, but with such highly developed CG thrown in as well it's hard to find the seams. In either case, the effects look amazing, even in 3-D.

   Despite its very few plotholes – like why did Joe leave the citadel unguarded? And where was Max going at the end? – Mad Max: Fury Road is an outstanding movie. Everything you've heard about it is true (except for the claims that this is a feminist film; I wouldn't go that far). And that's about all there is to say. It's a good movie and you oughtta watch it.

Rating: five stars out of five!

Movie Review Repost -- Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Sorry, dudes. I've got nothing new this week. You know what that means: a repost of an older review that I did during my Facebook days. And since next month will see the release of a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie, I think it would be appropriate to look at my review of the last movie the series gave us, On Stranger Tides. My opinions on the Pirates series has been very up and down. I like the first movie, in which Johnny Depp wanders into what would've otherwise been a dull romance movie and ended up stealing the whole show. The second and third films were convoluted snooze-fests. And then there's this one, which was easier to digest but not exceptionally well written. As you'll see here, my thoughts of it haven't changed much since 2011. Enjoy.

   So there's a new POTC movie out this summer. Is it better than the last two? Let's find out. I'm going to be comparing them to the other ones a lot, so be prepared.

   Our new leading lady is Penelope Cruz who plays Angelina, the pirate daughter of Blackbeard and love interest of Jack Sparrow. Cruz does an excellent job of making Angelina an interesting character – this is what Nightly's character should've been like! Angelina and Jack make an exciting onscreen couple. Keith Richards is back – for about two minutes – as Jack's father . . . kind of pointless. Our main villain is Blackbeard, who, while he did have a cool introduction, is pretty dull throughout the rest of the film. His connection to Angelina often slows down the plot, like that scene where they play russian roulette to decide if she should jump into a river.

   The good news is that this movie's plot is self-contained and we don't have to wait for the next movie to see how it ends! (Yes, I'm still miffed about that.) This movie left out Will Turner and Elizabeth Swan from the other films, but that's OK. I always thought they were unnecessary. Now we can focus on Jack Sparrow and his adventures. The plot isn't as confusing and messed up as the second and third movies, but it's still somewhat needlessly complicated. Like the other movies, this one has decent physical humour and fun fight scenes, like that one fight near the beginning where Jack seemingly fights himself. Also cool, this movie has mermaids! Beautiful, highly intimidating, vampiric, man-eating mermaids. Cool.

   But this movie also has plot holes big enough to fit a pirate ship. Like where'd that prophecy about Blackbeard's death come from? It's just brought out of nowhere and never explained, that's where! So if Blackbeard doesn't want to be killed, why doesn't he just “zombify” himself like he did to some of his crew? By the way, there's a semi-pointless romance between a clergyman and a mermaid which sort of takes the place of the Will/Elizabeth romance. In the end, their fates are completely unexplained. Did the clergyman die of his wounds? Since Angelina drank from the fountain of youth (as a means of healing her mortal wounds) does this mean that she lives forever? No one says a word regarding this matter, so who knows? Putting together shreds of plot give only tattered answers.

   In short, this movie is only slightly better than the second and third POTC movies. If you're a POTC fan, check it out. You'll probably like seeing it once. If you're tired of pirates movies, then I wouldn't recommend this one. It just doesn't bring anything fresh to the franchise.

Final Rating: two and a half out of five.

Movie Review -- Ghost in the Shell

   So I went and saw a weird action movie starring Scarlett Johansson. No, I didn't just rewatch 2014's Lucy. I saw Ghost in the Shell, a sci-fi action flick that's gotten pretty mixed reviews so far. Before I begin, it may be helpful to mention that I know nothing at all about the source material, so I'm not going to be commenting on it's faithfulness to the original manga of the same name. I'm also not going to touch on the whole whitewashing controversy (mostly because I don't care). If you want to read about people ranting and raging over that topic, there's plenty of other websites you can try. But come on, this movie has ScarJo in a skin-tight bodysuit. It can't be that bad!

   Ghost in the Shell takes place in the year 2XXX in the sprawling city of XXXX-ville, in the Republic of XXXXX... in Asia somewhere. In this world most people have cybernetic enhancements, even to the point where experimentation with brains transplanted into completely artificial bodies are taking place. One such cyborg – the first of her kind – is Mira Killian, a counter-terrorism agent working for the Department of Defence. Her investigation of a botched assassination attempt leads her into a plot of corporate corruption as well as a path of self-discovery. And it's all presented in a typical cyberpunk tone that isn't too serious, but at the same time isn't over-the-top silly. This isn't exactly the most original plot in the world; you'll be able to tell where some of the threads are leading. Additionally, some of the movie's themes – what it means to be human, etc. – could have been developed a bit more. The story isn't awful, but it is Ghost in the Shell's biggest weakness.

   Thankfully, the movie's characters are interesting enough to hold the film up. Scarlett Johansson does a great job with her magnetic portrayal of Killian, the unsure protagonist longing to know more about her past. Pilou Asbæk is fun to watch as Killian's badass partner agent Batou. There's also a widowed lady character played by Kaori Momoi who, while she doesn't have many scenes, still manages to leave an undeniably potent impression. As with the film's themes, Ghost in the Shell doesn't fully flesh out every one of its characters, instead giving us several brief tastes of persons it would have been cool to learn more about.

   Ghost in the Shell's visual effects are very impressive. While it is obvious that the film uses CG, the effects are incorporated so seamlessly that spotting the seams is no easy task. (So just do what I did: give up looking for them and just enjoy the freakin' movie. OK?) This visual proficiency lends itself well to supporting how imaginative this film's world is. Many characters have cybernetic enhancements that you'd never have imagined seeing before. I was taken aback by a few of them that I wasn't expecting. The action scenes are pretty cool too. Fight scenes involving invisible people never felt so cool.

   But the biggest thing Ghost in the Shell has going for it is its visual style. Equal parts daytime-Blade Runner and 1980's neon sci-fi-fest, this film's spectacle is a sight to behold. From the costume/hairstyle design, to the bright, colourful lights, and futuristic metropolis – even the darkwave synth soundtrack – you won't find a more 80's sci-fi film this side of the new millenium. One glance at the cars shown in this flick is all the proof you need.

   I don't say this often, but I think the critics are wrong about this movie. Ghost in the Shell is a respectable action movie that gets more things right than wrong. Could it have been better in certain aspects? Yes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it despite (or possibly because of) not being familiar with the source material. And if you're a fan of cyber-punk, futuristic, sci-fi films with a cool vision, then chances are you'll like it too.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Lucy (2014)

Sorry you're getting your weekly Anachronarchy post one day late; I was away this weekend. So since a weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Ghost in the Shell, is out I think it's an appropriate time to share my original thoughts on the last weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Lucy (2014). Will I go and see Ghost in the Shell? Maybe. We'll see. As for Lucy, I think it may have been better than I gave it credit for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly dumb, but at least it's fun. I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime.

   It's time to review Lucy, the not-so-creatively-titled film based on an urban myth proven to be false over a decade ago. But I won't make a big deal out of that right now because it is possible to make an entertaining movie based on an urban legend. And is Lucy one of those films? Let's find out.

   The film revolves around Lucy, a young woman who is forced to become a drug mule when the South Korean mob implants a bag full of a new experimental drug in her abdomen. However the bag ruptures when the world's dumbest henchman kicks her in the belly (seriously dude, you had one job!), and the drugs cause her to access her brain's full capacity and track down the remaining drug quantities. Now this is a film that expects you to buy a lot of crazy stuff. Apparently, accessing just 25% of your brain makes you Superwoman, allowing you to have physically impossible abilities like telekinesis and omniscience. Accessing 100% of your brain turns you into God. Needless to say, when your main character is invincible some of the action scenes' tension is lost. It also doesn't help that she's surrounded by dumb people who don't bat an eye at suspicious people carrying guns. The ending sucks too.

   There's not much to say about the acting. It's just OK. Scarlett Johansson is actually really good in the first half hour or so, portraying a frightened hostage. But once Lucy gains her powers, she switches to emotionless robot mode for the film's remainder. Morgan Freeman plays the same role he plays in every movie: an important person who gives speeches (of course) and explains how complicated stuff works. For everyone else, the acting is pretty standard.

   The direction is really weird too. The first half hour of the film constantly and jarringly cuts back and forth between Lucy's story, Freeman giving a speech about brain stuff, and pointless stock footage of everything from tigers hunting, hurricanes, plants, and animals bumping uglies. Sometimes it's done to illustrate really obvious symbolism and it gets really irritating. But once Lucy starts using her head they just go away and never come back. However, something similar happens with the final climactic scene which is ridiculously over-the-top and runs for a bit too long. Maybe they were just trying to pad out the film's diminutive 89-minute run time. And to cap off this pseudo-intellectual crazyfest, we're given a one-line epilogue that makes absolutely no sense.

   For a movie that's based on brain power Lucy is dumb, but laughably so. Its exaggerated premise might drive some people crazy, but some people will have fun with it. If you didn't have the attention span to fully enjoy Limitless, then Lucy will suit your needs just fine. In short, it's somewhat entertaining. I mean, at least it's not Transformers 4, right?

Final rating: two stars out of five.

Retrospective Movie Review -- Room (2015)

   It's been a while since I've done a retrospective movie review, but after seeing 2015's Room I just had to. You guys remember this one right? That touching drama film about a boy and his mom who escape from their creepy captor and his single windowless room to discover the beauty of the outside world? It was nominated for tons of awards and received huge amounts of praise so I decided to check it out for myself.

   And I got to admit, I didn't really get it at first. I had to watch it three times in a row before I finally understood it, which is something I've never done before... the 3 times in a row part, I mean; I've understood movies before. Shut up! I'm a reviewer; what kind of fool do you take me for?! So let's get into it.

   After some opening credits showing the decrepit, uninviting city in which Room takes place, the film introduces us right off the bat to the dastardly captor paying a visit to his captive, the mother. Moments later the boy – who for some reason doesn't look that much younger than his mom – then enters the room. That really threw me for a loop the first time I saw this – I mean, it looks as if he's already escaped Room – but upon repeat viewings I've learned that the title is loosely applied to include the whole apartment building in which Room is located. We don't see the boy nor the mother leave the apartment building, so their “prison” is in fact a bit larger than the film's marketing led us to believe.

   Anyways, the mother at first appears to be happily in love with her captor but as soon as he's out of the picture she expresses her disdain with being forced to live with him and make love to him against her will. We learn that the only reason she pretends to love him is to avoid provoking his violent side, which most other people don't seem to believe exists. She tries, to little avail, to confide in the mishmash of similarly screwed up miscreants who occupy the same wretched apartment complex where strangers freely barge into any room they please and drug dealers run amok. This includes a crazy, middle-aged bag lady who likes to have the exact same 1-minute conversations over and over again. This woman loves to pretend she's our heroine's mother (although she shows nothing but antipathy for the boy) and to tell insane stories that she made up in her head such as the time her brother stole her inherited house or the time she found out that she definitely has breast cancer (which I highly doubt since she never brings it up again). Ultimately, bag lady is unsympathetic to the mother's pleas for help because from her warped point of view the standard of living afforded by the mother's captivity is good enough.

   Similarly, the mother reaches out to Mark, another neighbour, the captor's sleazy, back-stabbing best friend. She starts up an affair with him in an attempt to win him over to her side and set her and her son free. Although they bump uglies multiple times, Mark is reluctant to help her because he too fears how violently angry the captor might be.

   Yes, this captor may seem like an easygoing (albeit strange) man, but upon closer inspection he's really a psychotic ex-convict. He lives in a world of hallucinatory fantasies in which everybody likes him. For example, he's convinced himself that the woman he's kidnapped is his fiance and that the boy is his close friend/adopted son, I think (who freakin' knows?). The captor is a very controlling person. He confronts the mother when he hears her telling others about his physical abuse and tells her to either deny their occurrences or just to forget about them. He also has a tape recorder rigged up and ready to go so that he can record phone calls when he's feeling suspicious of the people around him.

   As one might expect, being born and growing up in such an inhospitable place has not done wonders for the boy's mental development. Just like his biological father, the boy has his own personal fantasies. In his case he believes that he is headed for university and at some point he stopped believing that his mother is indeed his mother and he develops romantic feelings for her. Eww. Even the captor is disturbed by this development, and in a brief moment of relatable decency he has a heartfelt talk with the boy and puts a stop to potential incest. It seems that even the scumbag captor is not without morals. That's what we in the bizz call a complex, three-dimensional character.

   It seems the only ray of hope comes in the form of Peter, the captor's friend and former psychiatrist from prison. Peter tries helping the captor with his problems but unfortunately he believes that the mother is just another figment of the captor's imagination. Peter later suggests that Mark also lives in a deluded fantasy world involving the mother fantasy, prompting a violent outburst. This scares Peter away permanently before he's able to discover that the captor's whole mother fantasy is actually real.

   Much of the film is focused on the whole “love” triangle between the captor, the mother, and Mark, with Mark having trouble deciding whether to free the mother and son or remain loyal to his weirdo best friend. This comes to a head during a failed-intervention-turned-surprise-birthday-party (the mother mistakenly planned it on the captor's birthday, so all the sleazebag neighbours she invited just assumed it was a b-day party). Here the mother flaunts her affair with Mark right in front of the captor. This makes the captor very angry and a savage fistfight with Mark ensues, effectively destroying their fragile friendship (but more importantly, ruining the party). Once everyone has left, the captor confronts the mother about her “infidelity”. Finally dropping the act she's kept up for so many years, the mother harshly tells him off and storms away. After seeing his last fantasy shattered before his eyes and unable to accept the way life really is, the captor has lost his reason to live. This makes him rampage through his apartment, destroy all his things, and then shoot himself dead.

   You'd think that this would be a happy ending since he was the bad guy, right? But no, the movie treats this like it was a sad event! Mark, the mother, and the son all discover the captor's lifeless body (at the same time, conveniently) and mourn for him. And that right there is the great twist ending of Room: everybody really did love him all along because they were in an advanced state of Stockholm syndrome! I never saw it coming... mostly because it makes no sense whatsoever!

   What is with this film? Room was absolutely nothing like what I thought it was going to be. It wasn't tense or harrowing enough to do the whole captivity-survival thing justice. The ending wasn't nearly as uplifting as it was supposed to be. Hell, the mom and son never even end up escaping! Apart from that, the film's production quality is so half-baked you'd think it was filmed in Turkey in the 1980's. The sets look cheap, the dialogue is very awkward, the acting is amateurish, and the frequent dubbing couldn't have been more obvious. And yet the film got nominated for 4 Academy Awards including best picture and director, with a win for best lead actress. What in the name of tarnation happened?! I'll tell you: Hollywood got drunk. The critics are all wrong about this one. 2015's Room is one of the most dishonest and dumbest movies I've ever seen.

Grade: ZERO STARS!!!

P.S. -- Who is Tommy Wiseau?