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.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Review #2005: The Super Mario Bros. Movie.

Cast: 

Chris Pratt (Mario), Anya Taylor-Joy (Princess Peach), Charlie Day (Luigi), Jack Black (Bowser), Keegan-Michael Key (Toad), Seth Rogen (Donkey Kong), Fred Armisen (Cranky Kong), Sebastian Maniscalco (Spike), and Kevin Michael Richardson (Kamek) Directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic.

Review: 

Admittedly, waiting to watch a movie, particularly one that is projected to have plenty of viewers in theaters (as one would expect to do unless they are a streaming sucker), isn't the worst idea in the world. This goes double for a good chunk of films that could be watched by anybody, and it goes even more for a film based on a video game that I actually enjoy from time to time. You may remember that this is not the first film based on the video game series of the same name, as Hollywood Pictures had made Super Mario Bros. (released in May of 1993), a live-action movie that point blank sucked (spare me the cult classic argument). Nintendo has only allowed two of their franchises to be made into films, and the other is Pokémon (insert your joke here, since I know people who play it as adults), which with the exception of one (the 2019 detective spinoff one) are all animated. Of course, this is technically not the first animated Mario movie because of the 1986 anime Super Mario Bros.: The Great Mission to Rescue Princess Peach!- oh hell, let's just get to the other thing to briefly mention. You know, the only thing that I had hesitation with was not the fact that Pratt was cast as Mario. No, what I had a bone to pick with is one that is more of a recurring gripe that should be mentioned more for animated films: the gripe of seeing animated movies (whether made by someone like Pixar or not) that have very recognizable names voicing characters rather than familiar voice actors. Of course, as long as the movie isn't garbage like say, Shark Tale, this isn't much of a distraction, so feel free to remind me of name actors trying to play animation the next time it happens. The film is directed by Jelenic and Horvath, best known as developers of the animated series Teen Titans Go!

You know, it is at least interesting that video game movies have managed to seem a bit better in quality than what came out in the years around the new millennium. Anyway, the movie is fine. As with the Sonic the Hedgehog films (2020, 2022), it is pretty much exactly what it says on the tin, being fairly bright and charming that mildly goes to please everyone and doesn't stumble on most of the steps of the trip. As an animated film, it is the kind of colorful adventure that you would think would be in a film made by a studio in Illumination that I have seen exactly only one other film from them (Despicable Me). It is lightly plotted and lightly funny, which is totally fine, since not every movie is going to turn into a passioned debate over plot dynamics. It is evident that Pratt, alongside his name recognition, was picked because of the idea that he could play the role with blue-collar charm and heart. With that in mind, he does just fine. Given that Charles Martinet has voiced the character countless times in the last three decades, the best thing to be said for Pratt is that the two Marios are distinct without becoming a distraction, and Pratt makes a quality pair in terms of family chemistry with Day and his timid amusement. Taylor-Joy makes an assertive lead to make the proceedings interesting, as one would hope. How exactly does one judge Rogen when he has stated that "I don't do voices" when he is voicing a goofy gorilla? Let's put it this way: if you know and like Rogen, go right ahead, but if you want the tiniest bit more than just a name phoning it in, then, well, give me a break, because he gets outclassed by the warm goof in Key or even a real voice talent with Richardson. But at least Black makes a quality adversary, drawing most of the chuckles that balances might within delusions of grandeur that clearly made an effort to have fun with such a clear-cut role. You can't even say it is predictable because you pretty know what you are getting into with something that is meant to be honed for entertainment with general reference to its source material without doing half-baked renditions of what people think they want. The Mushroom Kingdom looks quite inviting, and the family story works just fine with the general adventure to make nobody seem extra, even if I could barely care for the idea of music veing used for montages (does the world really need a "Take on Me" usage?). As a whole, it is perfectly serviceable for an hour-and-a-half when it comes to fast-moving adventure that sets things up with patience while putting in little references that rewards those who care about such things without turning into a movie of goo. It invites the idea of another film without begging for it, which I would say is more than enough for a solid piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Northman.

Review #1833: The Northman.

Cast: 

Alexander Skarsgård (Amleth), Nicole Kidman (Queen Gudrún), Claes Bang (Fjölnir the Brotherless), Anya Taylor-Joy (Olga of the Birch Forest), Ethan Hawke (King Aurvandill War-Raven), Willem Dafoe (Heimir the Fool), Elliott Rose (Gunnar), Gustav Lindh (Thorir the Proud), Eldar Skar (Finnr the Nose-Stub), Phill Martin (Hallgrimr Half Troll), Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson (He-Witch), Björk (the Seeress), and Olwen Fouéré (Ashildur Hofgythja) Directed by Robert Eggers (#780 - The Witch)

Review: 

If I told you that this was a Viking rendition of Hamlet, would you be as interested to hear about the movie as opposed to just stating the cast and director? Well, one does prefer a bit of a history lesson, I suppose. Amleth is a legend in medieval Scandinavian lore, as told by Saxo Grammaticus, a Danish historian who wrote about him in the 13th century based on the oral traditions of long ago, which explains why the film is set in the year of 914 (by coincidence, "Hamlet" happens to be an anagram of "Amleth"). As such, this is a loose adaptation of the legend, one that was written by Eggers and Sjon, an Icelandic poet, novelist and lyricist. This isn't exactly an adaptation of Hamlet as it is more a parallel of it, but since one has likely seen many interpretations of revenge and madness, this isn't exactly a surprise: it involves a family mixed in blood and fate. Undeniably, it helps to have a little familiarity with Eggers as a director before one goes off seeing a film like this, since it helps to see the progression of a director who seems interested in exploring lost imaginations through all the research and rigid shooting methods that were apparent in his prior films with The Witch (2015) and The Lighthouse (2019); it is the traditions of the past that he wants to see through that mean most. Skarsgard and co-producer Lars Knudsen had wanted to do a Viking project for some time, but it was only in 2019 that Eggers was tapped to direct the film, and there were historical consultants utilized for the film that would do a mix of historical accuracy and educated guesswork; for example, initiation rituals are not exactly specified beyond a few descriptions of sprinkled blood of dead animals (now, catching a thrown spear to throw it right back, that came from an Icelandic saga). At any rate, it is the biggest budgeted film done by Eggers (at around $70-90 million), owing to attempts to try and balance the demands of the studio for accessibility over deliberate pacing/artsy - 137 minutes is the run-time for the film.

It does start a bit sluggish, but once one is hooked into its blunted edge of darkness, you are in. It never tries to be anything other than what it wants to be in a saga that has plenty of blood to go along with an unyielding sense of revenge. Well, that, and the honor of being able to die by the blade. It draws on mythology and archeology to make a formidable freak-out film that doesn't settle for just mundane magic.  Eggers has cultivated a brutal yet beautiful vision of history while making a film that would make Conan the Barbarian (1982) blush. Any debate over whether style or substance wins the day seems unnecessary when it comes the real question about just how far a vision can go in not wanting to compromise for the sake of it. For me, I was totally fine with the movie as a whole, because I admired what I was seeing in its blood-soaked sorcery without needing to squirm at attempts to divert itself away. This also includes the climax, which manages to maintain its destiny of vengeance with durability. This is a movie that starts with folks taking substances while acting as wolves and ends with a fight on a volcano...in the nude. It may be weird, but I admire its sensibility and its gradual pacing, and it is the cast that helps to elevate the material just as far as it wants to go. Skarsgård makes an ideal lead in terms of a man going berserk with trance-like fury that exists along the other people for one purpose: primal ones. Kidman takes some time to get properly involved in the action, but when she does get there, she sinks her teeth right in when it comes to committed steely nature, particularly when Kidman and Skarsgård encounter each other alone. Taylor-Joy seeps into the mystical side for a few useful moments (generally spent with Skarsgård), earthy and familiar without mundane. Given that one could almost flip the perspective around for a different film (a man threatens to take one's whole family away because of something they did years ago...think about it), it is interesting to see just how Bang would end up, because he makes a soothing adversarial presence, one that doesn't have to chew scenery to make the inevitable conclusion with the lead any more interesting than it needs to be (heck, they don't even say words in that moment). Hawke and Dafoe aren't in the film for too long, but they are each useful for what needs to happen with the youthful title character (as played by Oscar Novak), made clear by their one big scene together: a ritual together, complete with folks acting like dogs...and hallucinogens, which certainly raises the hair on the skin. Just saying what happens in a movie like this isn't quite enough, one really should just see for themselves what happens in a movie that presents vengeance and traditions of the Viking age in all of its clear glory without pretense or false note. I think it hits most of its marks for what it aims for, and fans of Eggers will certainly enjoy what they see here, and I think others will generally find their patience rewarded.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Glass (2019).

Review #1184: Glass.

Cast: 
James McAvoy (Kevin Wendell Crumb / The Horde), Bruce Willis (David Dunn / The Overseer), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price / Mr. Glass), Sarah Paulson (Dr. Ellie Staple), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Adam David Thompson (Daryl), and Luke Kirby (Pierce) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, and #1183 - Unbreakable)

Review: 
There is a certain absurdity to the fact that this film exists, acting as a sequel to two different movies while being the final part of a trilogy labeled by some as the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" that are fairly different from each other in tone from film to film. Unbreakable (2000) was a mystery kind of thiller, Split (2016) was a horror thriller, and this film certainly feels like a psychological thriller. I suppose the tradition must follow that the last installment is the one that helps deliver satisfaction and/or answers to its audience that makes it stick out from the previous ones. Well, there are certainly answers given in this film...along with more questions. What can one expect from something that resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) for comic books? It is the kind of movie that clearly has ambition to inspire discussion and interest over a variety of things (specifically within human nature) while trying to play with the expectations of the audience within the script, which ultimately plays into a flawed but interesting result. It definitely feels like the weakest of the three films, but I did find something worth watching, even if it perhaps took a bit longer than it should have, particularly with something that lasts 129 minutes. There are clear highlights on a technical level such as Mike Gioulakis and his cinematography (which certainly shows off a variety of colors) and West Dylan Thordson with the music, and Shyamalan does manage to make something worth inspiring curiosity in, even if he can't quite resist trying to trick the audience perhaps one too many times with twists.

In the long run, the film rests on the shoulders of McAvoy, who is the shining light among the others, managing to once again showcase the numerous personalities of the character he plays with effectiveness and no touch of tiresomeness. He inspires his share of terror and humor while keeping the movie rolling, and his scenes with Jackson or Willis are an enjoyment. If you thought that Willis was bit too subdued before with Unbreakable, then I suppose you will have quite the experience in seeing how subdued he is here, since he doesn't have as much presence (or lines) to speak of, although at least the climax does give him something to do. Jackson finds his footing and voice gradually, and it is interesting to see him to try and pull the strings as a take on the brilliant mastermind that works fairly well. The others don't have as much strength to their presence or as much interest. It is the character (and narrative) that Paulson plays that don't stir as much enthusiasm, since I am more interested to see her consequence for the idea that one can simply lock up super beings (the cliche of believing they can't escape is even present here) than what makes her tick. The returning three characters from the previous parts of the series are okay in the small amount of time they have. It is nice to see Clark return to reprise a role from nineteen years ago, but he doesn't really have too much to do before the last half. Taylor-Joy is fine, but the dynamic between her and McAvoy takes some time to get used to again, and the last scene is a bit of a weird sell. Woodard is alright in her small role. Honestly, this is an okay movie, but it is certainly one that require patience and some understanding to really help get a foothold on its thought process, one that likes to deconstruct the tropes of the hero and villain, which has its share of potential. It just so happens that the twists that occur within said narrative that make the true payoff a bit muddled but also one to give thought to. If one is expecting a big showdown for a climax, they won't get exactly what they may expect - but they may instead get something a bit more interesting if not offbeat. Time will tell what will occur to the reputation of this film as a whole - after all, the first film managed to develop a cult following over time. I can't say it is as consistent or as entertaining as the other two films, but this film does at least serve its purpose for a trilogy about super beings without serving as a letdown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Split (2016).

Review #902: Split.

Cast:
James McAvoy (Dennis / Patricia / Hedwig / The Beast / Kevin Wendell Crumb / Barry / Orwell / Jade), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Betty Buckley (Dr. Karen Fletcher), Haley Lu Richardson (Claire Benoit), Jessica Sula (Marcia), Brad William Henke (John), Sebastian Arcelus (Mr. Cooke), Neal Huff (Mr. Benoit) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense)

Review:

It's been two weeks since it came out in theaters (as it premiered at festivals earlier last year such as Fantastic Fest), but I figured that Split would be interesting enough to watch on the big screen, and it has been over five years since I saw a Shyamalan film. Ultimately, it is a nifty horror film in how creepy it raises itself while managing to save its trump card of horror for a pretty satisfactory climax, at least for me anyway, and it does that on a PG-13 rating. While it can be argued that the premise is somewhat strange, it can also be argued that it is also somewhat interesting to make a film out of, and it is executed fairly well, not being just an run-of-the-mill escape film with teens. It is undeniable to say that the best part of the movie is McAvoy, who delivers on showing numerous personalities with the right kind of off-putting terror, where even him dancing to music (as one of his...odder personalities) is creepy. Taylor-Joy does a pretty decent job as well, having a quiet but useful type of cleverness that works better than the other two captives, probably because she isn't so focused on escaping so quickly. The movie thankfully does have scenes outside the cellar, and Buckley does a decent job in making her character a bit more than just a doctor with a patient going crazy. It is true that the characters are a bit odd with their decisions at time (with the doctor qualifying for this near the end as well), but Split manages to keep itself going on the idea of seeing what McAvoy is going to show up next. The climax, as mentioned before, is satisfactory in how it manages to not resort to too much CGI or over-screaming, working on its own terms. The Beast is a fairly decent effect, not being too ridiculous (in terms of voice or look) while managing to work in the short amount of time it gets on screen. On the whole, this is a satisfying (along with creepy) film, with Shyamalan doing a good job in making an entertaining film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Witch (2015).

Review #780: The Witch.

Cast
Anya Taylor-Joy (Thomasin), Ralph Ineson (William), Kate Dickie (Katherine), Harvey Scrimshaw (Caleb), Ellie Grainger (Mercy), Lucas Dawson (Jonas), and Bathsheba Garnett (The Witch) Directed by Robert Eggers.

Review
It's been a week since the last review, so on a whim, I decided to look up films in the theater. Of the new ones in release, this one popped up that I hadn't heard of. After a bit of searching over what it was (including the fact that it had premiered at Sundance the year before), I decided to go see this film on a whim. Even though there were only a handful of people there to see with me, the movie was worth the price of admission. The movie (set in the 17th century) certainly has a good atmosphere and setting, while managing to have a fairly entertaining group of characters and not trying cliche techniques to scare the audience. The dialogue (which according to the credits is based off real journals and accounts of the time) takes a bit of time to get used to, but the actors manage to sell the movie and make the characters very believable. The child actors (Scrimshaw, Grainger and Dawson) are not too annoying, and they share a critical scene (Along with Taylor-Joy) that manages to be creepy. The movie certainly does take its time to get going, but the movie eventually gets its footing on the strength of the family dynamic and the interactions between all of them. It's not a movie to watch for blood/gore, but for the creepy tone that it manages to set up with such a simple premise. It's not a great horror film, but it is at least an entertaining movie that keeps itself going from beginning to end.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.