Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga.

Review #2216: Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. 

Cast: 

Anya Taylor-Joy (Furiosa; Alyla Browne as young Furiosa), Chris Hemsworth (Dementus), Tom Burke (Praetorian Jack), Lachy Hulme (Immortan Joe), Nathan Jones (Rictus Erectus), Josh Helman (Scrotus), John Howard (The People Eater), Angus Sampson (The Organic Mechanic), and Charlee Fraser (Mary Jo Bassa) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie, #2215 - Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome)

Review: 

It seemed only yesterday that one was heralding the return of George Miller to directing a new Mad Max film, because the development of Fury Road (which in addition to having Tom Hardy as the title character had Charlize Theron co-starring as Furiosa, who if you remember had one grey arm and paint around the eyes) was one that took multiple decades to go from an idea of a continuous chase to something that resulted in plenty of stuff (as developed by Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris for the screenplay) that could've resulted in a whole other film (in fact, there was an idea to shoot back-to-back a Furiosa film with Fury Road, but, this did not pass). Long story short, years would pass before Miller got to make what he envisioned in a film that is both prequel to Fury Road and spinoff; there was an idea to use de-aging tech on Theron but instead Miller went with just casting a younger actress for this film (of course, in the segments of the film with a really young Furiosa, technology was used on the eyes to more resemble Taylor-Joy). Several members of the crew from the last film returned here (such as for production design, music, and, well Miller writing with Lathoruis for the screenplay). Evidently, it took over two months to shoot the big action sequence of the film (the longest of the films at 148 minutes). which is only the tip of the iceberg in rip-roaring interest before its climax. Plans are never set in stone, but Miller apparently has one idea in mind for another Mad Max film involving a Wasteland, but one never knows.

It is pretty amazing for a series like Mad Max to go five-for-five in quality entertainment. Miller wanted to make a movie that goes all in for action that lends its lead actor plenty to show in their eyes rather than copious amounts of dialogue (Miller has stated his longstanding passion for silent films) that also manages to look like something worth seeing in a theater for all of its spectacle. It manages to uphold what made Fury Road so special all those years ago that acts on instinct in a manner that makes for quite the accomplishment once again for primary Australian productions and Miller. You could highlight the opening chase sequence or the rig sequence for its execution of sound and not be wrong with either choice. The landscape always manages to make an impression on oneself when viewing it among the imagery in a way that makes the storytelling all the more effective in what gets conveyed within the selective dialogue used. Browne and Taylor-Joy each have their moments in the sun to express so much when it comes to having to make a place for themselves in a world that values resources above all (as evidenced by the fact that two of the main locations of the film are "Gastown" and "Bullet Farm"), particularly for someone like her that has plenty of suppression amid all of the mayhem. It isn't about the dialogue that matters so much to her journey as it is the way she maneuvers the surroundings that arise from such perils. The dynamic that arises from her and Burke in trying to carve a living while in a rig that doesn't seem to allow any thought of it is a curious one because of that understated charm that arises as if one was viewing a Western (again, it seems hard to have any sort of bond with people in a place full of nuts named "Immortan"). Hulme works well in fitting into the role as originally played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in terms of stature (as opposed to just calling him a creep for all of those wives, shall we say). However, it is Hemsworth who seems to stand out the best in the film because of how much he commands of the screen in his villainy. Far from just an inflated nose and other little things to spot in his features (and of course, the chariot), he cultivates a unnerving presence that is tremendously captivating within his brutality and chaotic nature (consider the group seen with him at the start as compared with how he stands at the end). He clearly relishes being in this role and the climactic scene with him and Taylor-Joy is especially helpful in understanding the nature of revenge versus fulfillment within one's soul. In general, this is the kind of film that gives a spark to make plans to watch alongside Fury Road and enjoy with complete fulfillment for all of the technical accomplishment that arises from each production in post-apocalyptic spectacle and mythmaking on the most interesting levels. I'm not sure where it ranks when compared to the other quality predecessors, but it is quite an odyssey to experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Insidious.

Review #1556: Insidious.

Cast: 
Patrick Wilson (Josh Lambert), Rose Byrne (Renai Lambert), Lin Shaye (Elise Rainier), Ty Simpkins (Dalton Lambert), Barbara Hershey (Lorraine Lambert), Leigh Whannell (Steven "Specs"), and Angus Sampson (Tucker) Directed by James Wan (#1175 - Aquaman)

Review: 
"I wanted to prove to people that I could make a very classic, old-fashioned haunted house film and show that I could make scary films without relying on blood and guts."

Sure, one can go the mainstream path with horror films, or they can go into independent features that try to reach audiences without trying to compromise themselves too much in vision, whether with gore or not. James Wan found himself as a key figure in making independent horror that reached mainstream success. Born in Malaysia but raised in Western Australia, he graduated from RMIT University with a Bachelor's degree in Media in 1998 that helped him teach him about the process of filmmaking he had wanted to do. Wan made his first film in collaboration with Shannon Young as Stygian (2000), a 16mm low-budget action-horror feature that found its way to local film festivals (such as Melbourne's Underground Film Festival, which noted it as having a great use of the "Guerilla Aesthetic"). It was his directorial debut in true features however that proved prominence however: Writing with Leigh Whannell on a script that was inspired by their dreams and fears. Aspiring to pitch to studios with something presentable, they made a short film together in 2003. The nine minute short (with Whannell appearing as the star) Saw ended up attracting enough attention for a subsequent feature film to be directed by Wan the following year. While Wan would co-write for the third film, Wan moved on to other features, although Dead Silence and Death Sentence (both 2007) proved less successful, leading him to take a rest until he aspired to make a horror film with Whannell without needing to resort to gore. He has kept himself busy with horror in directing and producing (aside from a few profitable blockbusters), which included directing the second of the subsequent Insidious franchise.

Sure, it is easy to go around the bend and call the film an attempt at a modern-day Poltergeist (1984), with its haunted house aspect (...to a point) and having to have a parent rescue their child from the other world and such. But that would miss the point of the fact that this is actually more equal to the sequels of Poltergeist in that they are laughably missing adequate scares along with its attempt at explaining itself in the second half for less adequate effect. I do wonder how the film might have been with acting that seems more prepared than having three weeks to film - of course it could also be possible that Wilson and Byrne just okay and that's that. One gets to partake in the "things are happening and I'm the only one who sees it", while the other tags in for the latter half and handle the horror themselves because plot reasons or something. One almost wishes for more Shaye at that point (without more of the obvious bumbling from Sampson and Whannell), mostly because one would probably want the soothing temperament in reaction to building horror as opposed to the family aspect (oops).  If you desire a film that tries to ride on atmosphere with a bit of visuals that don't rely on gore, this could be for you, but honestly this just came off as a parlor trick that has seen better days. This was written by Leigh Whannell (who wrote for all four Insidious films while directing the third one and also doing his own somewhat overrated horror film with The Invisible Man ten years later), who as with Saw also has an important small role in the film. Wan and Whannell can be applauded for their attempts at making a cheap little family drama falling into horror that maintains their independence without spending more than $1.5 million, at least. I just wish it wasn't such a silly spectacle in doing the mundane in jump scares that might as well be a film where someone goes "BOO!" every so often. At that point, I'd rather have the little gore cheapie that could, because it will test patience in a less tiresome way. The second half may be weaker than the first, but that's mostly because if it is going to try and explain itself or delve into concluding itself with scares, it better accomplish something meaningful more than just a book report of how they spent their haunting. If one invest themselves into its carefully concocted family scareshow for 102 minutes, they may find something with some satisfaction in those moments to jump out in imagery. For me, it proves too mild and too late to build its mood to a rightful enjoyment worth more than one viewing for those who prefer to see a bit more fight in their horror times.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.