Mad Max: Fury Road

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 5 of 5 stars Average: 4.5 of 5 stars (Tweety canary)

Dustin: Fury Road is a gritty reboot of the Mad Max franchise, 30 years after Beyond Thunderdome. Max is back in the body of Tom Hardy to take on his old nemesis Toecutter (Hugh Keays-Byrne), who has been rebranded Immortan Joe.

Nick: This was the best action film that has been released during my life that I’ve seen! All the scenes had some sort of thought process in the direction which is a hell of a thing to be able to say for an action film. The cameras swing, sometimes literally, from car to car while characters do the same. I would like to see this film without all of the CGI used on the characters and the cars and see what is left because I want to know what was actually done by stuntmen. It seemed like a lot. Their names should have been on the poster!

Dustin: I wouldn’t go as far as to say this was the best action film of my lifetime, but I’d say it was quite good. It is an example of what I hope other filmmakers will emulate in the use of CGI. Some of the effects were clearly CGI, yes, but I never thought an entire scene was constructed with CGI. The computers just complemented the effects. I think back to The Hobbit movies, where so much of it just looked like a cartoon.

Nick: The film’s not perfect, but it comes as close as I’d ever imagine an action movie being. The whole premise of Immortan Joe wanting his male heir, but they call Rictus Erectus his son throughout the movie, so I must have missed something. There was also a scene where the movie could have possibly ended, but then the film went on another 25 minutes, but all the action scenes were so phenomenal I never really cared. If I had seen this before Furious 7 I would have left FF7 in a very disappointed manner.

Dustin: This movie did a lot right in terms of plot and character. I mentioned in our review of Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 I didn’t understand why he was so gung-ho on stopping the art heist when his goal was to rescue his daughter. All that stuff was a distraction. Here the characters’ motivations are simple and their actions make sense toward their goals. That is actually fairly high praise.

Nick: Fury Road does a lot with so little. All the characters have a base motivation and nothing more and it never stops working. I’m a little afraid that three more films have just been greenlit, but that’s just the cynic in me.

Dustin: I wouldn’t say the characters all have base motives. It appears so at first. We’re dropped into the middle of an ugly world. But the characters’ humanity comes through at different times, and it is uplifting in a way. Max risks his life to save Joe’s fleeing wives, despite their initial distrust of him, Furiosa (Charlize Theron) seems like a hardened warrior at first, but she has altruistic motives, and Nux transcends his initial War Dog mindset to become a full-fledged hero to help the women.

Nick: My base motivation comment is about the simple want of a free life which is what drives all the characters from start to end beyond Nux. But Nux realizes at some point in the film that freedom sounds pretty good. And at the very end it goes beyond that as they fight their way back to Immortan Joe’s Cavern (good bar name!) to free all the people. They want to help each other as well but living a free life is the main focus.

Dustin: I think what I liked best about the film is that all the action was no-holds-barred. The bad guys were trying to stop Joe’s wives from reaching their safe haven, and went all-out in that end, with vehicles that looked grisly, yet somehow practical. And if they accidentally killed a few of the wives, then so be it. You could understand the stakes in this movie. I never felt like they copped out by putting the characters into easily escapable situations.

Nick:  Plus, the fact that this is a big budget action film and passes the Bechdel Test is highly impressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test). It’s very rare to have more than one scene that might give an action film a pass, Guardians of the Galaxy, but this whole film passes and that’s amazing and is what probably led to this idiot not wanting to see the film: http://www.themarysue.com/mra-to-the-max/

Dustin: I’ve come across these Men’s Rights Activists before. They’re basically just trolls, so the best response is to ignore them.

What sticks with me most after the film is the overall flamboyancy you don’t see in a lot of films these days. You had the drummers riding behind the warriors while a masked guitar player shredded from the front of the vehicle. It was a meaningless, but awesome, element of the movie that added to its overall tone.

Nick: Another awesome element was the Milk Mothers… you’ll see what I’m talking about! The film reminds me of Kung Fu Hustle in how it easily shifts betweens tones of comic and drama without getting too muddled. There are scenes that will make you look at your friend going, “What the fuck was that?!” in excitement or one where you feel deeply engrossed in a character’s plight. It’s always impressive and enjoyable to see a film like that.

Ex Machina

Dustin: 4.5 of 5 stars Nick: 4.5 of 5 stars Average: 4.5 of 5 stars (Tweety canary)

Dustin: Ex Machina pits man against machine as a man has to decide whether a robot has true artificial intelligence, and, dare I ask?, a soul.

In Ex Machina, Oscar Isaac plays Nathan, a modern day Geppetto who wants to make a real woman to make up for never having a wife. He creates Ava (Alicia Vikander), a sexy, female Pinocchio, with a personality so real she can fool Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), one of Nathan’s employees who provides a moral counterbalance to Nathan... making him Jiminy Cricket in my analogy?

Nick: Nathan is perhaps the most memorable antagonist of the past decade. He’s a nerdy frat bro who is extremely menacing either using his intelligence or the muscles he is constantly crafting. When he is not crafting abs or robots he gets drunk. And like you said the tagline of the film from Nathan’s point of view could be, “The one thing that didn’t come easily for Nathan was women so he invented one!”

Dustin: Nathan was perfectly set up--a perfect synergy of writing, acting, cinematography and direction. Before we even see him, we already have a creepy feeling about him, without one word of dialogue. Then, even after we meet him and he gives reassurances he’s a chillaxed everyman, we can’t shake the bad feeling we have about him. I can’t think of a villain who gave me the chills from the first moment since Darth Vader (although Javier Bardem’s villains in No Country for Old Men and Skyfall come close).

Nick: I seriously thought of both of those villains too! That’s quite a compliment to his character.

Dustin: This movie did so much right that the few miscalculations come off as nit-picky in comparison. It has many subtle plants and payoffs that will please attentive viewers. I don’t want to elaborate because I don’t want to spoil much, but a good payoff isn’t easy to pull off.

*THE REST OF THE REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS*

Nick: While I initially had a problem with the ending it has grown on me in the past couple days. It might be because it answers that question of “do robots have souls?” Or it’s just so shocking to have a character end up that way.

Dustin: I also found the ending troubling at first, but after pondering it for a few days as well, I don’t think it could have ended any other way.

No, robots don’t have souls. Ava was Artificially Intelligent. But her personality was a reflection of her creator. Nathan was manipulative and two-faced. It’s no surprise the robots he programmed turned out the same way. The first indication his robots were a reflection of his personality perhaps came in the genius and hilarious dance sequence where he and Kyoko (an earlier AI), dance in perfect synchronization. Very subtle foreshadowing. This is also probably the first time I’ve seen a scifi movie successfully pull off a dance sequence.

Nick: I think it could have ended in a slightly different fashion. The way Ava leaves Caleb is chilling. It’s the part that I’ve yet to accept and answers the question if she does have a soul its a sociopathic one. Ava could’ve taken Nathan’s keycard and Caleb would have still been stranded on that island, but he would still be able to get food and live. Where Caleb is left he can’t get to anything and will starve to death. It’s not often our protagonist ends up worse than the antagonist, but it happened and I have to deal.

Dustin: I also would’ve liked things to have turned out better for Caleb, as he’s the everyman the audience is supposed to relate to. But I think any “fairer” ending for him would have been out of character for Ava and affected my suspension of disbelief.

Nick: It wouldn’t have for me. I think by leaving Caleb there she treats him more cruelly than Nathan, which kind of hurts my belief. Leaving Caleb stranded on the island is still cruel, but it’s not a slow death.

Dustin: I think Ava, not being human, is capable of being colder than even Nathan.

I was also intrigued by the Kyoko character (Sonoya Mizuno). I had a feeling there was more to her than initially presented. Nathan says she doesn’t speak English, but she seemed to understand everything that was going on. I thought she was either another AI, or perhaps a Japanese corporate spy coming to steal Nathan’s secrets. (I don’t think casting a Japanese actress in that role was a coincidence--I think it was intentional misdirection.) But the scope of the movie didn’t seem large enough for a corporate espionage subplot, so I correctly guessed she was AI. Again, another element of the movie that was set up very well.

Nick: I thought Kyoko was either an AI who didn’t have the ability to speak or a concubine who didn’t know English, but learned through being around Nathan. So I thought she would try to tell Nathan what was going on and that’s why the camera would focus on her whenever there was an air of mistrust. But when the Disco dance went down it became obvious for me that she was indeed a sexy AI who can’t talk, i.e. Nathan’s perfect woman.

It’s amusing as well the two women in this film can be described as objects who want to be considered equals, but are either kept in a locked room or forced to serve.

Dustin: The places in the film that had me not quite buying it were the power failures that were timed perfectly for the plot. I figured Ava might be able to cause them because of how they were timed, but I wondered why Caleb didn’t suspect this earlier, as he seemed much more intelligent.

Nick: I thought the film was trying to make it seem like Nathan was causing them to make Caleb think he was alone with Ava, and since Nathan is seemingly untrustworthy when he tells Caleb he’s not causing them it doesn’t convince.

Dustin: I thought that could be it too. I figured the timing was too perfect, so either Ava or Nathan was causing them, but I couldn’t fathom why this didn’t occur to Caleb. It was out of character given how intelligent they had established him to be.

Nick: Caleb actually asks Nathan if he is causing them so he does question them as to which Nathan replies he is not. Then the next day he interviews Ava she confesses to causing them. So its not like it was a mystery for long and Caleb did question them if that makes you like the film any more than you already do.

Dustin: Regardless, he seemed a little uncharacteristically careless around them. Otherwise, this is easily one of the smartest films I’ve seen in a long time. I think it approaches Birdman and Whiplash in my list of favorite movies I’ve seen recently.

Nick: I often think that a category for the Oscars should be Best Scene. My pick for the year, so far, would be Ava getting dressed at the end of the film while Caleb watches her. It was so gratifying and yet so small.

Dustin: That’s what she said!

In conclusion, get off your Internets and go see Ex Machina!

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 1.5 of 5 stars Average: 1.25 of 5 stars (Dead canary)

Dustin: Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is the much clamored for (I guess?) sequel to Paul Blart: Mall Cop. A few days have gone by since I’ve seen it, and all I remember was the Wynn resort and something about a heist.

Nick: For the me the movie is not the worst we’ve seen (Tammy), and I honestly didn’t mind the film. I think kids could like it, and I don’t recall a single fart joke, which was quite impressive… in a sense.

Dustin: I walked into this movie expecting to hate it, but I walked away not hating it. I wasn’t sure if I should give it only 1 star, but then I thought, If the best thing I can say about this movie is that I didn’t hate it, then it’s a 1-star film.

Nick: I was thinking before the review if I wanted to go 1.5 or 2, but I went low because although I feel its getting some undeserved heat its still not that good. Some of the pratfalls and gags, the way they were filmed, were entertaining. Such as the climatic fight scene when you have the mall cops accidentally performing stellar fighting moves to defeat the bad guys. It was executed well and had me intrigued.

Dustin: Some of the sight gags were pulled off well, but every joke was predictable. There was not one where I could not have guessed the outcome from the setup. I laughed when he was showing off on the Segway, and then got hit by a car. Even though I could see it coming from a mile off, it was well executed.

Then there were some things that seemed to be the setup to a joke, but didn’t have a payoff. Like when he collapsed from not having enough sugar in his system, then he licked up drips of ice cream from a little girl’s cone, then just got up and walked away. That was the joke. I was expecting him to get comically pumped up with the little bit of sugar. I was almost ready to laugh, but then it just fell flat.

Nick: I chuckled when his body fell flat right before that, and yes the ensuing bit did not work, but the film has little moments strewn throughout that might make a person smile. Like when the granny gets punched in the stomach and instead of getting mad starts to say how she probably deserved it for sneaking up on him. I thought that was funny and well timed. This film has a spirit that makes it hard for me to hate it. It’s super positive, even when Paul or his daughter Maya are sad they turn it around pretty quickly and have a never-ending faith in each other. I never want to see this movie again, but if I was a parent I would not mind my kid watching it.

Dustin: I found it hard to like the character. Part of that is because I just don’t see the appeal of Kevin James. Is he a star? He doesn’t have that indefinable quality that allows an actor to carry a film. But the character just isn’t very likeable. There’s a part where his daughter is upset and yelling at him, and he just sits there nodding while still stuffing his face. It was supposed to be funny, but you can’t really relate to the character, and the tone of the movie wasn’t dark enough to work as a dark comedy where that kind of joke might have felt more at home.

Nick: The jokes at the beginning are very dark and unnerving, yet the film treats them as throwaway jokes. His wife divorces him after six days, and his mom gets hit by a milk truck. I don’t think this is a type of film where you try to relate to a character like any of the past ten Adam Sandler vacations, I mean, movies. They’re just friends having a good time, doing what they love and giving the lowest common denominator what they pine for! Speaking of friends, I quite enjoyed the Saul Gundermutt character and his wife. The character is overdone, but so is everything else in the film and thus you have to accept it. Gundermutt’s hair was like Eraserhead if he was balding from the front, constantly wearing aviators while sporting a wrist brace probably from a bowling injury.

Dustin: I was just about to talk about his mother’s death at the beginning. Yes. She gets hit by a milk truck. It was set up an timed like a joke. Laughing yet?

That’s the problem with a lot of the jokes in this movie--they have a “kicking down” feeling to them. An old woman getting hit by a truck and dying isn’t funny. Comedy works when there’s some kind of juxtaposition that adds irony to a situation. When something happens to a person of high status, it is different than when the same thing happens to someone of low status. For example, it would be funny if Obama slipped on a banana peel, because he holds the highest office in the land and #Obamacare #BlameObama. But if a kid with cancer slipped on a banana peel, it would just be sad. I somehow don’t think Kevin James or Happy Madison Productions understand this distinction.

Nick: Death can be funny but it mostly depends on how it's executed (no pun), but we can debate that some other time as reviewing Paul Blart 2 is too important to be getting sidetracked.  

Dustin: A movie that established itself as a dark comedy could probably pull some of that off. But this movie didn’t really establish a distinct tone, and I think that’s the biggest problem of all. It’s not that it was bad… it was just bland.

Nick: But if it happened at the beginning, and you hadn’t seen the original, would that not be setting the tone as a dark comedy? His life is decreasingly falling to pieces in the first minute of the film, and you have nothing else to set a tone besides all of these horrible things that are played for laughs. I’m not saying its a dark comedy, but if that was the first thing shown in the film then you might consider it a dark comedy… until of course the shenanigans begin. I also have a sometimes dark sense of humor as I often start laughing during horror films when kids get killed off, but that’s because I can’t take it seriously.

Dustin: The tone was set in the opening credits. Other things create mood that set the tone, like the lighting and pacing. This pretty much has the look of a sitcom, so you’re not expecting a woman to die for a laugh.

Nick: Ha! The guy who started the review saying all that he remember is a heist and the Wynn hotel is now talking about the lighting in the first scene!?  

Dustin: I remember how the film looked, but don’t really remember what it was about. I remember he somehow ended up on stage with Cirque du Soleil, but not laughing or enjoying anything. His daughter gets captured by the criminals, and he seems more interested in stopping their art theft than getting his daughter back. I get that some comedic plots are just a hanger to hold up the jokes, but there weren’t really any jokes here.

Nick: I think Blart was trying to get his hands on a piece of art to use as leverage to get his daughter back, which is how that amusing fight sequence I talked about earlier started.

All the jokes come from a place of desperation as if a class clown didn’t make you laugh at first and then continues trying harder and harder, but never getting any funnier.

Dustin: I guess in conclusion, while Paul Blart couldn’t kill this bird--

--he did kill our canary.