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.

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 2.5 of 5 stars Average: 1.75 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: A Million Ways to Die in the West is a long, tiresome *ahem* comedy in which Seth MacFarlane deconstructs the Western genre with subversive, ironic humor (ha!).

MacFarlane (Family Guy) is Albert Stark, a sheep herder hurting after a breakup with his girlfriend, Louise (yawn). Louise is now involved with the owner of a mustache-grooming shop, Foy (Neil Patrick Harris, Starship Troopers). However, Albert soon finds a more compatible partner in Anna (Charlize Theron). Only problem is her husband, Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson, Schindler's List), is a big-time baddie who is riding into town for some reason the movie didn’t care enough to explain.

Nick, what did you think of A Million Ways to Not Give a Flying F***?

Nick: Is there anything worth applauding about this movie? No! Though I found myself laughing more than in the somewhat respectable Neighbors. Once again the most important thing about a comedy is that it makes you laugh, whether or not the film is absolutely dreadful.

Dustin: There were some one-liners that made me laugh, and a few jokes out of left-field I found funny (the best of which were already in the trailer), but for every laugh (none of which were huge), there were two or three jokes that fell flat. And given the movie was almost two hours with a throwaway plot, I found myself getting increasingly bored as this movie dragged on.

Nick: I recall Roger Ebert stating a comedy is better when the jokes exist within its constructed universe. My biggest problem with A Million Ways to Die in the West is that our main character seemed to be the only one who did not exist within the film’s universe. MacFarlane constantly makes jokes that could not have existed during that time, and all the other characters react as if he is nuts. This happens throughout the film and only Anna seems to get his jokes.

Dustin: A lot of jokes in this movie were based on “breaking the fourth wall,” much like Mel Brooks does in his films. The reason this movie fails is because even with all its raunchy humor, it never feels subversive, as Blazing Saddles did in the 1970s. This movie is just obnoxious. The jokes that don’t involve breaking the fourth wall are usually someone farting. The rest are about poop or pee.

A movie can be funny with a character existing outside the “constructed universe” if the humor is wry or detached. Think of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day or Lost In Translation.

Nick: In Blazing Saddles everyone character is in on the premise that these jokes were anachronistic. In A Million Ways to Die in the West, only MacFarlane seems to understand himself.

Dustin: Maybe MacFarlane should have played a time traveler stuck in the Wild West. This would have at least given his jokes a reason to exist. His character is detached from the setting, but the humor goes for gross-outs rather than irony. This is really a lowest-common-denominator comedy in the same vein as MacFarlane’s animated shows.

Nick: While there is no arguing for Family Guy, American Dad! (after first season) has become a pretty phenomenal cartoon. Just check out the episode “Toy Whorey” (season eight, episode 18) to see what I mean. Anywho, with all of MacFarlane’s background in musical theater, I’m shocked he doesn’t make a musical. He has a solid voice and his songwriting is good as well. I’d enjoy a comedy musical.

Dustin: MacFarlane does have a certain charm with his voice and clean-cut looks. I might enjoy a musical comedy if he did one, but given he pretty much has carte blanche on his projects, I don’t see him putting in that kind of effort (musicals and comedies are the two most difficult genres to write).

Nick: MacFarlane should either act in movies written by other people or direct and write movies where he leaves the acting to another (Ted). This movie fails in that he is the writer, director and star. When MacFarlane goes on his rants in the movie (it happens a lot) it’s obvious he wrote those words and is delivering them as if he is having a drunken conversation in a bar in 2014, but talking about the Old West. They also call the West, “THE WEST,” quite too often. For all the talking about THE WEST its shocking THE EAST never comes into play. Maybe Neil Patrick Harrison’s character could have recently arrived from THE EAST to where people living in the shitty West (including MacFarlane) would fawn over him while he betrays the town with plans to knock it all down in some devious money-making scheme. As is all the plots from Westerns.

Dustin: This movie avoided some of the cliches of the Western genre in that it didn’t have some greedy baron forcing people of their land like Shane or Once Upon a Time in the West. That probably would have made the movie better, though. He could have parodied the cliches of the genre. Instead, we have some story about a guy dumped by his girlfriend and falling for another girl while trying to make his ex jealous. It isn’t even a plot, really.

Nick: The film never focuses on that plot either. Though I found that kind of realistic. Real life doesn’t have plots, things just happen. So while the film had motivation, it never really had a plot.  Since the film isn’t a character study (film with no plot) nor a drama, the film needed a plot in order for the film to move forward in a somewhat organized manner. Though organization is not MacFarlane’s strong suit.

Dustin: I think all films need a plot, even if they are character studies. Why would I pay good money to watch real life when I can see real life through my window? If I wanted to watch real life on film, I would see The Real Cancun.

Nick: Not all films are plot-driven, instead they are driven by motivation. Martin Scorsese's films are known to be more motivated by characters than plot based until The Departed. Most indie films are more driven by characters than plot.

Dustin: I find it funny we’ve gone off topic and started talking about good movies. I think further highlighting how crappy this movie was is that it was filmed in Monument Valley, where John Ford filmed a lot of his Westerns. Just looking at the stone formations, you think of The Searchers, which reminds you of what an actual movie should be.

Was there anything you liked about this film?

Nick: Harris played his character spectacularly, and Theron proves that even in a bad film she tries her hardest to make it that much better. The Old Prospector was good too.

Dustin: I’d recommend this film to anyone who likes to sit in a theater with a bunch of morons forcing themselves to laugh at every joke, saying, “That’s so wrong!”