"Mad Max: Fury Road" Review

Courtesy: IMDB.com

Mad Max: Fury Road

4 out of 5 stars


Family appropriateness rating: 2.25 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Action violence throughout, some of it is bloody
-Some language including one f-word
-Some partial female nudity










Critics have raved about the new "Mad Max" film. It stands at a 98 percent on Rotten Tomatoes*. One of reviewers, Chris Stuckmann — who I have nothing but respect for — gave it an A+, which he rarely does unless the movie is really good. While "Max" will entertain you for the full two hours, it is slightly overrated**.

Tom Hardy plays a rebooted version of the title character, a vagabond living in a post-apocalyptic, lawless Australia. He travels alone, running from crazy people who drive suped-up vehicles through the desert. At one time, he served as a police officer because he wanted to help others. When he saw his efforts were in vain, he quit.

In this film, he gets captured by a group who work for the tyrannical Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, who also played the villain the first film more than 30 years ago). He rules over thousands of people by controlling their water source and uses a group of women to bear his children. When these "breeders" try to escape with the help of Immortan's most-prized driver, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), some of his henchmen take Max to recapture them.

This leads the character (and by association us as an audience) on an epic, sand-filled adventure with excellent stunts, beautiful cinematography and awesome music, some of which a guitarist plays on top of a vehicle with fire coming out of the instrument.

As you can see from my score, I thought the movie was really good, and I can see why other critics raved so much about it. The one I mentioned earlier, Chris Stuckmann, put out a video in which he gives a checklist for what action movies should have, and "Fury Road" satisfies every criterium in it. In a nutshell, he says a solid action flick needs to feature an un-recycled storyline (check), a hero who is both relatable and vulnerable (check), a well-defined villain (check), quality stunts done at least partially by the actors (check) and steady camerawork (check).


(Though I gave out the list, I would still recommend watching the video if you are a film fan. Stuckmann explains the reasoning behind his list, and it is interesting. Just a warning for those who care, this video contains some depictions of violence and brief strong language).

It is notable how this film handles the hero's motivation. Max struggles with the conflict between desire to help others and fear of failing to do so. This does not bog down the movie. It is shown just enough to illustrate the character as a human being and give him motivation for his actions: he appears to not care about others even though we as an audience know otherwise.

The only thing about this movie that may be classified as a problem is some of it looks sped up. This is something the director did on purpose, probably for an aesthetic feel. I personally was okay with it, but some people might not be, including the friend I saw it with. Other than that, the movie does everything it sets out to do: tell an interesting story while delivering some fast-paced action sequences.

I wrote that this film is overrated because that is how I feel about it. Coming into the theatre, I had so many expectations, having heard so many good things about it. I thought I would have — what I will start referring to as — "shout out loud" moments, or "sol" (fun fact: this also means "sun" in Portuguese). These are moments when something so awesome happens that I want to yell "That is so cool!" The most recent time I can remember doing this was in theatres was during "300: Rise of an Empire." The beginning scene when the Athenians charge against Persian invaders on the shores of Marathon was so epic, I turned to my friend and geeked out about it, jumping with pure delight.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" does not have any moments that were like that for me. It has plenty of cool sequences, but nothing so mind-blowingly awesome that it made me want to disturb other theatre goers. Maybe the fire-blowing guitarist would have done the trick had I not already heard of him. In any case, he is still awesome and the movie is still worth seeing.

Like my page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

*Rotten Tomatoes is a website that takes reviews of all the film critics and determines what percentage of them like the film. This score indicates that 98 percent of critics gave a rating of three out of five stars or higher. The average good movie is about in the high 60s or early 70s.

**I want to emphasize that this is my own opinion. It does not invalidate the views of other critics who enjoyed this movie more than I did. As a film-review blog, I do not think it necessary to say "in my opinion" within the text, but knowing how the Internet works, I do not want to come across as a prideful jerk who thinks only his views are correct.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars
-Action violence throughout.
-Mild language
-One brief sex-related joke during the credits.











"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is what the trailers promise: plenty of fun, action scenes within a generic story that offers little substance.

Reporter April O'Neal (Megan Fox) is basically Kate Hudson's character on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and Robin in "How I Met Your Mother." She wants to be a serious journalist but is confined to cover menial, fluff stories. In order to break out of this rut, she is investigates robberies done by a group of outlaws known as the "Foot Clan," led by the evil Shredder (Tohoru Masamune).

This leads her to find a group of vigilantes who are fighting the Clan. It is extremely difficult to get anyone to believe her because they are mutant turtles who happen to be teenage ninjas.* There is a deal going on between the Foot Clan and someone who wants money that will put many lives in danger. The turtles need to stop this from happening, and O'Neal tries to help them.

The first scenes with the turtles are from April O'Neal's perspective. They fight so fast in the shadows that it is impossible to see anything. When the turtles are introduced, the action is seeable, and there are some good throw-downs between them and the Foot Clan. The action is done in a super-quick, martial-arts style. Like recent super hero movies, when they hit, they hit hard.

A lot of announcements about this film have been met with skepticism. It is based on a franchise that is important to many people, and the producer is Michael Bay, who is famous for the "Transformers" films. Many people do not like him because he does not care about the source material. A lot of what he directs are shallow, lazy movies with a lot of explosions. Some of the skepticism came from rumors that the turtles were going to be aliens -- which the filmmakers decided not to do -- and the casting of Megan Fox.

This movie ended up being better than I thought it would be. It was produced by Michael Bay, not directed by him. It is not an overly-long movie with nothing but action and crazy big explosions. It is more grounded than that. It does well balancing story with action.

Megan Fox does an okay job in this film. The role does not require a great performance, and she does exactly what is required of her. What might make fans angry is not so much her performance but the fact that the turtles' origins are linked to her and her father. I do not know much about this franchise, but I am pretty sure that is not how it is supposed to be.

Though it is not horrible, this movie is mostly forgettable. The story is just a generic action-adventure, and the characters are not particularly interesting. There is too much focus on April O'Neal's story and not enough on the turtles. It shows just enough to where I have the gist of who the turtles are. There is a lot of potential for some witty banter, but most of what they say falls flat. Though the action is well-choreographed, it is not capable of putting people at the edge of their seats because it does not matter what happens to the characters.

Had this been in the hands of a better writer/director like James Gunn, it would have been a much better film. I do not recommend going out to see it in theaters. Spend your money on something worthwhile like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" or "Guardians of the Galaxy." This one can wait for a Redbox or Netflix release.

*See what I did there?

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

Guardians of the Galaxy

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Action violence throughout.
-A moderate amount of language. No f-words, but one character almost says it once.










Once you get past the initial confusion that comes with learning different names, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is every bit as good as "The Avengers."

The movie is about five different characters who work together to save the universe: Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista). There is an all-powerful object that the Kree terrorist, Ronan (Lee Pace), wants, and they need to make sure he does not get it.

Like "The Avengers," this film is great because it combines fun action scenes with excellent dialogue between characters with distinct personalities and motivations. Peter Quill is a human from earth who was captured by the alien, Yondu (Michael Rooker), as a child. Now, he is a goofy outlaw, who constantly references things from earth that no one else would understand. He has spent his adult life as a lonely man, stealing things from around the galaxy until he meets the other main characters.

Rocket and Groot are best friends who are always looking out for each other. Rocket is an opinionated, loud-mouthed, raccoon-like creature who is very talented with guns. Groot is a gentle, walking tree, who believes in not being violent unless it is necessary. When it is necessary, you do not want to be on his bad side. His entire language consists of "I am Groot," and only Rocket understands what he says.

Gamora is a daughter of the evil Thanos (Josh Brolin), who has been responsible for the deaths of many people. She has spent her life serving Ronan and her father against her will. She wants to stand up for what is right.

Drax is from a race of aliens that take everything literally. When someone says something metaphorical, he does not understand it. He tags along with the other characters because he wants to take revenge on Ronan for killing his family.

The trailers make this movie look like it will be a weird space adventure, much like Spaceballs. That is not entirely true. There are certainly a lot of funny, quirky moments, but that is not the whole film. It knows when to be dramatic, and it knows when to be comical. Most of the humor comes from the dialogue. Writer/director James Gunn does a great job writing witty banter that keeps the characters consistent.

The way certain characters and places are introduced can be a little confusing. The film deals with different planets and therefore different names. The first time they are said is often too fast and connected with other key names. I missed some minor details while trying to get them all straight. However, the story is simple enough to understand once you know who all the players are.

For the most part the action scenes are well-done and fun to watch, but they are sometimes cut too quickly to see what is happening. When they are good, they are very good. One of the best action sequences involves Groot, and he is my favorite character because of it.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"22 Jump Street" Review

22 Jump Street

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 2.3 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Strong language throughout including the f-word in both sexual and non-sexual contexts.
-Some sexual content including shots of sex toys and naked blow-up dolls
-The official MPAA rating says there is brief nudity, but I do not recall any
-Some drug content including a portrayal of tripping
-Mild violence including gun shot wounds.





"22 Jump Street" takes the concept of the first film and keeps it fresh from beginning to end.

The film follows "21 Jump Street," which is a reboot of the 1987 television series. In it, Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are two cops who — after getting into trouble — are assigned to the Jump Street program, where they go undercover in a high school. There is a new drug going around, and they need to pose as regular students to find out who is selling it so they can find out who the supplier is.

"22 Jump Street" has the same premise but in college. It knows it is a sequel. It knows its limitations, and it points them out brilliantly. It does not do this by breaking the fourth wall like in "The Wolf of Wall Street" or by saying "Hey, we are in a movie" like all of the Muppet films. Instead, it utilizes a character to talk about it in terms of the "Jump Street program." Part of this aspect is revealed in the trailer, but there is still a lot more to it.

One of the things that the first film was praised for is it shows how different society has gotten over the last ten years in terms of "What's cool." It addresses the fact that the bullies and jocks used to be the ones who were incredibly popular, but there has since been a shift in culture. Now, it is socially acceptable to be different and nerdy. Furthermore, no one likes bullies anymore.

This film addresses the fact that college students have a much different mentality than high schoolers. The main characters have essentially the same task, but it is more difficult than it was the first time. That is because everyone is more intelligent. When Schmidt or Jenko ask any student about the new drug, they are met with suspicion because both of them look older. Those in college are smart enough to see through their façade. Not only is this interesting, it also keeps the story fresh by introducing additional conflict.

A lot of R rated comedies get most of their laughs from gross-out humor and tons of sexual references. Sometimes these are forced because since it is rated R, they can get away with just about anything. What is great about the Jump Street movies is they are not like that. There are some crude jokes, but the films do not rely on it. Most of the humor — and the overall entertainment value — comes from the relationship between the two main characters.

They are very different people. Schmidt is a smart, nerdy guy who is not very fit. Jenko is the polar opposite. He is as dumb as a stick of butter, but he has the physical prowess of Spider-Man. This film addresses these differences and even asks why they are such good friends. Not only does this create some good humor, it creates the necessary drama to keep the audience invested in the characters.

This friendship partly works out because of the tight chemistry between Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. From an article I read (here) it seems they are good friends in real life. This translates well on screen. Every scene in which they are together is fun to watch.

There is a certain twist in this movie that is very well done. It is unexpected, and it is set up so well that it is both believable and wildly hilarious. It alone is worth the price of admission.

If you are a fan of the first film, go see this one. It has the same premise, but it is just as fun.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher
Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02