Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

*** ½ out of ****

Ten minutes into “Fury Road” I thought I had been sucked in by Rotten Tomatoes again. I went to see this film because it has a ridiculously high 98% rating on the review site, so I figured it must really be something. But ten minutes in I was EXTREMELY uncomfortable with the decision, thinking I was watching a cross between “The Road Warrior”, “Silent Hill” and “The Descent”. The sped up freaky action and bone-white villains, not to mention the frenetic camera motions and bizarre hallucinations made it seem pretty friggin' bad.

…..but then something happened.....

Thirty years ago we last saw Mad Max in "Beyond Thunderdome", a really poor effort of a film after the masterful “The Road Warrior” (1981). Big budget and blockbuster, it was a canned formula movie totally unlike the Indie-feeling original two Mad Max films. Now that Mel Gibson is getting up there (and burning Hollywood bridges like California brushfires) it would figure that Mad Max had gone the way of the dodo.

We now find Max played by Tom Hardy (who I last saw as Bob in the wonderful “The Drop”-2014) and he continues to roam the post apocalyptic wasteland. But he is captured by a community of outlaws, who belong to a city they call “The Citadel”. This aspect was intriguing because The Citadel is like Waco, Texas complete with a David Koresh-like leader, Immortan Joe, who his followers believe to be a new Messiah. They also believe that if they die doing his bidding, they will immediately find themselves in Valhalla, a heaven-like concept that Joe has resurrected in full form from Norse legend.

Kept alive only because his blood is found to be a “universal donor” for the ill “war-boys” (nobody ever says what they are ill from, but radiation poisoning seems the safest bet), Max is a prisoner in chains and unable to fight. And when he is dragged along with a war party (to keep pumping blood into Nux, a war-boy), he is so completely bound his eventual death seems inescapable.

What the war parties are chasing is “The War Machine”, a big rig taken from The Citadel by Furiosa (Charlize Theron). Stowed away on the War Machine are Immortan Joe's wives, all young nubile things he uses for breeding. Seeing their chastity belts will make the most rugged man squirm.  The war parties are to catch up with and kill Furiosa, then return the wives unharmed.

Now let me first say that this film is risky. Mad Max is not the star (Furiosa is), there is minimal CGI (a lot has been made of the fact that 90% of the stunts are real), there are uncomfortable religious overtones throughout and the key character of the war-boy Nux is played by Nicolas Hoult (R from “Warm Bodies), painted white, shaved bald and pretty revolting throughout. The most accurate description of the last 100 minutes of the movie would be a long, adrenaline-soaked car chase – much like the last 15 minutes of “The Road Warrior” dragged out much longer.

And it works. MAN, does it work.

The tension throughout this thing is mind-blowing. The chase is so intense you are literally on the edge of your seat the ENTIRE TIME. The performances are fine (which is all they need to be in something like this), and the storyline is remarkably coherent and enjoyable despite the discomfort of some of the themes.

If you love pure action, no-holds-barred, butt-puckering pressure and destruction on a grand scale, this is your movie. Despite the oddness of that first ten minutes, this is something really wonderful, and surely good enough to hold it's own with “The Road Warrior”. If there was ANYTHING you liked about the original trilogy, don't miss this movie. In my opinion it is the best of the bunch, and not by a small margin.

The Boy Next Door (2015)

*1/2 out of ****

Over the past few decades there have been a lot of stalker movies. “Fear”, “The Crush”, “Fatal Attraction, “Unlawful Entry”..... they all have the same basic theme. Person comes along who seems very nice. Hero (or heroine) gets involved in an inappropriate relationship with said person. Person turns out to be nuts. Nutty person stalks.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

“The Boy Next Door” isn't the worst of these, but it isn't very good. Jennifer Lopez is a high school teacher who is recently separated from her cheater of a husband, and a ripped, handsome 20-ish lad moves in next door. She finds herself attracted to him, and due to her lack of ability to hide it, he sees it. She is, of course, JLo, so he is attracted too. But despite the fact she knows he may be attending her school in the fall, she loses herself in a moment of weakness and ends up rolling in the hay with him.

Unfortunately, he's a psycho. He starts to obsess about her and when she tries to make it all go away he starts to terrorize her. She is borderline retarded (if she had involved the authorities at the first threat she would have been fine and her job not at risk), but instead she tries to cover everything up and then solve the problem on her own.

It's a thriller. There's just no way it can end well.

For the bubble-gummers, this is an okay film. Borderline soft-core porn for the sex scene (I guess JLo wants to flaunt it while she still has it) that will turn on the teen boys, and a good looking shirtless guy for the gals.  The “thrills” are utterly predictable but deliver if you have no imagination to see what's coming. Even the ending is right out of “how can I make this exactly what people expect” textbook.

Not utterly dreadful. But don't expect much.

The Gambler (2015)

*** ½ out of ****

Mark Wahlberg might be the nicest surprise I've ever had as far as an actor's career. Starting out as a poor imitation of a hip-hop artist (Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch – come on come on – feel it feel it), when he made the transition to the movies I expected him to suck as an actor as he did as a musician.

At first, he was surprisingly adequate. In “The Basketball Diaries”, “Fear” and “Three Kings” I didn't find him to actually be good, but he didn't stink, which alone made it a bonus. He got a lot of accolades for “Boogie Nights”, but again, I felt he was adequate – it was the script that shone there, not his performance. But then along came “The Perfect Storm”, where he was almost great as a novice deep sea fisherman. And he just kept turning in good performance after good performance until “The Departed”, where I finally had to concede – this guy's the real thing. He had evolved into a really talented actor.

In the films since, he has continued at the same high level. His most recent film released to DVD is no exception. “The Gambler” finds him playing Jim Bennett, a poor-little-rich-boy with a terrible gambling addiction. You can tell he sees himself kind of as the Matt Damon character in “Rounders”, but he gambles really poorly. Crazy risks, stupid moves and a total lack of accountability have seen him drop hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (and to guys that kill you if you don't pay it back) and stretched beyond any limits.

His mother is a rich widow, and he (as well as his creditors) expect her to bail him out. Unfortunately, she is as far past the end of her rope with him as everyone else is. Things don't look very promising for Jim, and given his understanding of his gambling addiction and his clear self-loathing, he appears to feel it would be better for everyone if the guys he owes just kill him. At one point he even has the money to pay everything off and just pisses it away in an effort to make it clear to everyone that he has given up on himself.

Wahlberg isn't getting a lot of attention for this role, but I feel it is one of his best. He has the character down, and he doesn't play him at all as a sympathetic character. I felt that was the right move, as guys like him aren't very sympathetic in real life. They are hard, cruel, self aggrandizing and have little or no regard for the feelings or needs of other people. He play Jim just like this, and the manner in which he drives anyone's good feelings about him away is extremely realistic.

Other noteworthy performances are by Jessica Lange as his rich but cold mother, Brie Larson as a college student who see a chance for redemption for Jim, and John Goodman as an end-of-the-line loan shark – the kind of guy who is into risk management and murder when the risks don't pay off.

This isn't a feel good film. It's cold, brutal and cruel. It's also very real. I loved it.

Hot Tub Time Machine 2 (2015)

** out of ****

I have to admit, “Hot Tub Time Machine” was one of the most wonderful surprises of 2010 for me. Being roughly the same age as the primary characters, all the references and associations the movie made about 1986 had me in stitches. Add to that the absolutely reeeeee-diculous characters and dialogue, I spent a good half the time in tears from laughing so hard. Lightning in a bottle for sure.

But as is so often the case in movies, they decided they could reimagine it and catch the same lightning again. So let me first say they have failed, and failed miserably. It isn't nearly as clever or hysterically funny as the original. However, being a big fan of idiot behavior, I have to admit the sheer stupidity of the lead characters left me laughing and mildly entertained.

This is a bad movie. But it's a GOOD bad movie. “Evil Dead 2” or “Drop Dead Fred” kind of good bad movie. No attempt is made to legitimize the film, just to have the dumbass characters say dumbass funny things throughout. For instance, there is a scene where the leads are looking in a mirror and seeing themselves as they will look in 10 years. I was dying over some of the comments:

“You look like Gandalf the poor.”

“You look like the least-popular kid in the cancer ward.”

“You look like you've never made a correct decision.”

“Ever.”

“I have definitely given a back alley blowjob.”

So Lou (Rob Corddry), Nick (Craig Robinson) and Jacob (Clark Duke) travel 10 years into the future to stop an assassin from coming back in time and killing Lou. Conspicuously absent is John Cusack's “Adam”, but I guess his career is still too good to commit to a clearly bad film. They get into lots of utterly silly misadventures, but their incessant insulting dialogue keeps it funny throughout.

I'm not going to lie – if you don't laugh at Beavis and Butthead, the Jackass movies or David Letterman's Stupid Human Tricks, you won't get much out of this movie. But if you do, you will laugh and even though you'll agree it's a very bad movie, you'll watch it every time it pops up on AMC in a few years.

Yeah, it's one of those.

Get the Gringo (2012)

** ½ out of ****

Mel Gibson has had an incredibly interesting film career. Notwithstanding his admittedly weird behavior outside the movies, he has gone from a lengthy start in “art-house” type films to becoming an enormous action movie star, to a reliable comedic actor to a bona-fide directing and producing monster. He's even co-written a few worthwhile films, but “Get The Gringo” is the first he has written completely on his own.

Gibson is a bit of a “man with no name” in the film – though he gives several names we have no idea what is real name is. He and a partner are, at the start of the movie, in full dress as clowns and have robbed someplace of $2 million. They crash through a border wall into Mexico but are immediately apprehended. But when the Mexican cops find the money, Gibson goes straight to prison, the partner to a shallow grave (having already been badly wounded) and the money vanishes with the cops.

The Mexican prison Gibson goes to is a pretty unique one – other than the fact the inmates can't leave it's barely a prison at all. There are wives and kids, an entire outdoor criminal marketplace and a booming economy. Gibson uses his skills as a thief to be able to provide himself with the necessities, but he becomes familiar with the “Boss”, Javi, who keeps a 9 year old kid around because he has a failing liver and the kid is a suitable donor. The kid knows he's just marking time until Javi kills him for his liver.

To make a long story short, Gibson sets about a multi-tiered plan to escape, get his money back, get revenge on those that have wronged him and to save the kid. It's not terribly believable, but it is fun to watch and Gibson makes full use of his comedic timing in many situations. Overall it is nothing momentous but surely an excellent time killer.

Paddington (2014)

*** out of ****

I saw a trailer for “Paddington” quite some time ago, the one where the little bear destroys the bathroom at a London home. Honestly I didn't think it looked too compelling, probably something the little kids would like but not have much to offer an adult audience. Surprisingly, it turns out to be something a bit more than that.

Decades ago a British explorer visited “darkest Peru” (and it is ALWAYS described in the film as “darkest Peru”), where he was amazed to find a couple of talking bears. He introduces them to what becomes their favorite food (orange marmalade) and tells them all about wartime and postwar London. They all become great friends and he invites them to London, telling them they'll always be welcome in his city, then disappears never to return.

Fast forward a few decades and the couple of bears have an accident-prone youngster (the title character, Paddington), but they are very happy with one another and with their place in the world. That is until a nearby volcano erupts, destroying their home and killing the father, and the youngster is stowed away on a local ship to London to try to find their old explorer friend. He has no idea of the explorer's name, but has his stories of life in London to go by. He is fortunate to be temporarily taken in by a well-to-do family who is willing to help him look for the explorer, and he spends a lot of his time dodging a museum taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) that is bent on stuffing and mounting him.

The thing I liked about “Paddington” is that is doesn't offer any big “messages”. It isn't an allegory on racism or any kind of social commentary, it's just a nice little story about a bear that overcomes to try to find a place in the world. It's funny and heartfelt, and if you aren't completely cynical it's also really cute. It pokes a little fun a middle-class attitudes but that is never a centerpoint. And though I really have never been a fan of Nicole Kidman (the only films I really ever liked her in were “Dead Calm” (1989) and “My Life” (1993)) she is absolutely great as the villainous taxidermist.

If you're looking for something deep this isn't the right film. But if you like a straight-ahead lovely family film, if you cried at “Charlotte's Web” or constantly quote “The Princess Bride”, you'll love “Paddington”. It really is a lot of fun.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

** ½ out of ****

When “The Avengers” came out in 2012 I figured it must be pretty awesome. I like superhero movies, and everyone and their kid brother were going to see it multiple times, and it had Robert Downey Jr., so what could be bad?

Then I went to see and and, much to my surprise, I became one of the few voices saying, “.....meh.” Not the worst movie ever, but if I correctly recall what I said at the time, “Superman” (1978) and “Spiderman 2” (2004) were in no danger of being usurped as the greatest superhero movies ever.

Along comes 2015 and the much anticipated sequel to “The Avengers” has hit theatres. My 10-year-old son was very antsy to go see it, so I braved the crowds and did the “opening weekend” thing. What did I think of it?

….Meh.

The Avengers are now more of a cohesive unit, more cooperative and certainly zinging the one-liners with greater frequency. Bruce Banner and Black Widow are on the verge of a physical relationship (really Widow, you really want to see what happens to this guy when he gets horny?) but other than that the team dynamic seems pretty stable considering the fall of “Shield”.

But we can't leave well enough alone, and Tony Stark and Banner are working on a global defense program that suddenly becomes self-aware (Ultron, voiced by James Spader) and instantly becomes everyone's archenemy. For some reason he feels the world needs an extinction level event to save itself, so he immediately starts working on a diabolical plan to kill all of humanity.  And I thought HUMANS were judgemental.....

Also new to the story are some kind of weirdo wonder-twins. Not being a comic-book reader I had to be told that they were Quicksilver (wasn't that a Kevin Bacon movie?) and Scarlett Witch. Whoever the hell THEY are...... They start out as bad guys who think they're good guys but eventually join the side of right. Samuel L. Jackson makes an appearance reprising his role as Nick Fury, but I have to be honest – at no time did I ever feel like I was watching anything of any consequence.

Perhaps it is a positive thing that it was almost an hour into the film before I first looked at my watch.....

There is lots of action. The special effects are amazing and the script is very balanced. All the characters are given fair treatment, no small feat considering the number and size of some of the stars involved. Downey is easily the most entertaining of the bunch, but overall this was just more of the same. The villain (Ultron) was about as compelling as a foot fungus, and it was clearly designed to suit the comic book set rather than be a really good feature film.

I am giving it (generously) 2 and a half stars, but only for the strength of the production values and the performances. This film is tremendously inconsequential – if you don't rush out and see you aren't really missing much. I haven't watched the original a second time, and I can't imagine I will bother to view this one again either. If you're into this kind of thing you'll enjoy it; if comic book movies aren't your thing, this shouldn't be much more than a blip on the radar.