Fury, or how I felt when I watched this film

Brad Pitt stars in and produces this David Ayer movie about a tank crew in World War II. I was not going to write a review about this movie as I watched it ages ago on a flight to London. However now it has appeared in the DVD stores (my first instinct was to write video store) I feel I should.

Warning this review contains spoilers.

Synopsis:

It is 1945, and Sergeant Don 'Wardaddy' Collier (Brad Pitt) and his crew operate a Sherman tank in the final push to Berlin. Even though the Nazi's are losing the war, the allied tanks are still suffering terrible losses against the superior enemy tanks. After a recent battle Don lost a member of his crew who has been replaced by Norman (Logan Lerman), a young green soldier who was trained in administration. Don has to bring Norman up to speed to ensure the success of the mission and safety of his crew.

Fury feels like a cross between Saving Private Ryan  and Inglorious Bastards. But it can't quite reach the heroism of Ryan, or be as entertaining as Tarantino's Bastards. Instead, you have a group of characters who you have little sympathy for, with suspect and highly ludicrous motives.

Norman's first experience in combat is to (unsurprisingly) freak out. When he is ordered to shoot a lot of bodies, he panics and freezes. Determined to make a man out of Norman, Don forces Norman to murder an unarmed German prisoner of war. I imagine the scene was to add some 'grit' to film, or to show how even good men do bad things for the greater good, or maybe a visualisation of the "horrors of war". But it was just a pointless murder.

Next the crew enter a town which is controlled by child soldiers and their merciless SS masters. The inclusion of child murdering SS officer is a feeble distraction to the vile thugs inside the tank. Ayer hopes that by presenting the audience with a more horrible person that Wardaddy and his murderous and rapey crew will seem more heroic. They don't.

There is also a weird scene in a village where after the allies 'liberate' it from the SS, the US soldiers go on a bit of a rampage. Don decides to take Norman through another initiation  of manhood. He takes the young soldier into the home of a pair of young women. There he sets up house and has a shave. Then after some fear and awkwardness Don says to Norman, referring to a young German girl,  "If you don't take her into that bedroom, I will".  I suppose this is meant to be a scene where Don is seen to be civilised man and a father figure to Norman. And for killing a bunch of Germans as they entered the village, Norman now gets to have a girl as a reward. However no matter how the film portrays this scene, Brad Pitt's character is threatening to take the girl if Norman doesn't!  While the girl pulls Norman into the bedroom, does she really have a choice? To compound this the rest of the crew turn up angry that they were not invited to this party. One of the crew tells a weird rambling story about killing horses while the there is a palatable tension reminiscent of the rape scene in  Deliverence.  It is a horrible scene and highlightsthe characters vileness. 

Oddly the highlight of this field trip of nastiness is Shia Labeouf! Yes he is the solid moral compass of the group, and also gives a stand out performance. The best thing about Fury is his character. I think that says a great deal.  The other highlight is a tank battle between four US Sherman tanks, and one German Tiger tank. The scene was exciting and well shot. I am not sure that it was very accurate, but it was great action. 

The final scene is a battle between Don and his now broken tank and a large company of elite Nazi soldiers. It is ludicrous and tiresome. I remember reading Commando comics as a young boy which were based on more feasible outcomes. The elite Nazi forces, shown to be armed with specific anti tank weapons  decide to battle the immobile tank by  apparently packing away their anti tank weapons and then running in a column towards the main guns over and over again. It is only after most of the Nazi's are killed that the decide to take out the antitank weapons and use them ineffectively at a large stationary object. 

I found the movie to be stupid, cliched, ludicrous, but most of all horrible. It was just a tiresome piece of  theatre which failed on almost every level. 

Two Monkeys from me

Jurassic World

Great Freya's braids another sequel? According to the Den of Geek there are currently 139 movie sequels in the works.

Yes the studio in it's infinite wisdom is carrying on the Jurassic Park Franchise with Jurassic world. Although now that I have seen the film I have to admit that Jurassic World is different from most movies which are number four in a franchise.

Jurassic world is great!

Let me give you a synopsis.

It is has been twenty years since the first film. Ingen (the company behind Jurassic Park) has taken control of the islands and has been successfully running Jurassic World, a living breathing dinosaur theme park for the whole family.  But while the company has finally realised John Hammond's original dream, the world is now used to the spectacle of "real" dinosaurs. The park is losing money slowly, and in an attempt to bring in more visitors to the park, Ingen has decided to make their own dinosaurs. Bigger, and scarier than any nature could make.

What could possibly go wrong?

Enuse screaming and bloody hi-jinx!

Jurassic World is  marvellously fun. And while the movie has come under a lot of criticism  about the way dinosaurs are depicted, the movie is unapologetic. It is explained that the dinosaurs in the park are genetically designed to appeal to the public, and have been made to a look a certain way to boost the company's profits.  Given that this is made quite clear in the movie I don't really undertsand the criticisms about the movie. The whole premise of the story is that the company is playing god with genetics for profit, not science. 

Like any classic sci-fi movie, the ironic warning about man meddling with science to his detriment (read monsters eating people) has been the over all theme of the Jurassic Park franchise. Certainly with the first movie. However, despite the re-appearance of the wonderful Sam Neil (yes I have a cultural bias here), the franchise severly lost it's way with the third installement (dumb Spinosaur) . 

But like Batman Begins, Jurassic World  succesfully breathes life into a dying idea.  But unlike Batman it doesn't start from scratch, it recaptures all the brilliance of the first film. Jurassic World is  a homage to Jurrasic Park.  And unashamadly so. In fact if you want to go see Jurassic World,  I seriously suggest you watch  Jurrassic Park  before you do, so you can see and appreciate all the little nods to the first film. 

To sum up, the movie is a giant blockbuster spectacle with Dinosaurs and Chris Pratt. It is funny, scary and full of redemption. If you loved Jurrasic Park  go see Jurassic World   on the big screen. And take the kids because who doesn't like dinosuars devouring people!

Seven and a half Monkeys from me.

FURY ROAD

In 1979 the first Mad Max film rocketed onto our screens. An Australian grindhouse cult classic set in a dystopian future where lawlessness prevailed over the attempts of the road warriors to keep the peace. Next was Mad Max 2 in 1981 where the world has moved on from social collapse to a full on post nuclear apocalypse wasteland, and then Beyond the ThunderDome in '85 continued Max’s story.  Twenty years later and with Tom Hardy as Max we get the next instalment of Max’s adventures.

Some spoilers follow....

Synopsis

Max is captured by a desert culture run by a warlord known as Imortan Joe. Joe has access to a reservoir of water which he uses to control the local people. The majority of the population are dying of radiation exposure due to the historical nuclear war, and Joe hopes to breed a healthy legacy with a large harem of girls he has imprisoned. One of his warlords Imperator Fury (Thoron) recuses some of Joe's “brides”  and escapes into the wasteland. Joe, desperate to have his property back sends out his army of ‘war-boys’  packed into a high octane vehicles.  Nux (Holt) is a sickly war Boy and is using  Max’s using Max as a living blood bag, to keep himself alive. Not wanting to be left out of the bloody flaming glory that awaits, Nux straps Max to the front of his  car and joins the war boys in trying to stop Furiosa, and bring Joe back his brides.  After losing the main war band in a massive desert storm. Max escapes Nux and joins up with Furiousa.

Ensue a visual assault full of hijinks

At first glance the plot of Fury road appears to be very similar to Mad Max 2. While both films centred around a war band of post-apocalyptic raiders chasing Max as he tries to escape in a truck through the desert,  the films are really quite different.  While Mad Max 2 (or the road warrior in some countries) was a straight forward narrative,  Fury Road has a subtext. Furiosa’ s liberation of Joe’s brides and eventual redemption reflects how women can escape abuse and take control of their own lives. Over the course of the film the brides have escaped their fate as chattels for the purpose of breeding to become free.  I can see how this film is empowering to women, especially any that have been the target of abuse, bullies or other scumbags.

However while Fury Road has that subtext it is also a wild and wonder assault on the senses. Writer and Director George Miller has created a highly stylised film full of non stop action. In a way it is every film Michael Bay has wanted to make, but can't because he has too many hang ups and tries too hard.  Mad Max Fury Road is utterly relentless in it's pace and story. I think the best analogy is if Jack Black made a live action version of wacky racers set in the world of his game Brutal Legend!

I must admit I was horrified when I first heard about this film. But that was when I thought this was a terrible remake. It isn't. It is the same writer and director that brought you Max, and he is continuing Max's adventures in the best possible way. Tom Hardy is a great Max, and he has signed up for more movies.  Fury Road  will stun you, and possible make you wonder if you had a good time, or you just got carjacked.

I say both!

8 Monkeys

Mean Teddies rocks!

In an age where the remake is standard fair many of my friends ask me the same question "have people run out of ideas?"

My answer is no, but with the ever constant fear of failure, studios often go with what they see as a safe bet. Much in the same way as our free to air TV is flooded with Reality TV.  This is reflected in the many sequels and remakes that are in production currently. The remake of Gremlins for example.

But all is not lost, while cruising the Internet I found this cool short animated film created by Tyler Novo, on Jake Vipers cool site Epicstream

There are artists out there creating, and while they create we will always have cool things to watch and enjoy.

I love it and hope you do too.

Avengers 2

Controversial, classic, and a reasonable sequel.

The Marvel series of films has, for the most part, been highly successful. The Avengers series has taken a group of comic book superheroes and created not only one successful franchise, but successful franchises for the individual members of the Avengers team (excluding Black Widow and Hawkeye who the studio have not felt fit to give them their own movies). This is the second of the Avengers films.

Please note there are some small spoilers.

Synopsis

Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hawkeye and Thor are officially the Avengers team, battling bad guys around the world. During a mission fighting HYDRA in the fictional eastern bloc country of  Sokovia, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) AKA Iron Man has a spell placed on him by the Scarlett Witch, who with her brother Quicksilver, are fighting the Avengers.

Tony has a vision that the Avengers will be killed and he is responsible.  With that vision firmly in his mind he  wants to develop a self-aware  super android who can replace the Avengers, and thus ensure Earth's safety.  Sadly, like Dr Victor Frankenstein before him, his dream goes awry and Ultron turns out not to be Earth's saviour, but the vehicle of its destruction.  Only the Avengers can defeat Ultron, but Ultron creates rifts in the team which might not be able to be healed.

Dun dun DUN!

I am not sure as to how true this story is to the comic books, but from my understanding the current line-up of Avengers is not the classic line up. With the introduction of new characters such as Vision and the Scarlett Witch, Avengers 2 is a return to the fundamental ‘historical’ avengers of the Comics. The whole film as more of a comic feel to it as well with the cinematography of the major fight sequences.

Wheldon has tried to right the imbalance with Hawkeye and Blackwidow by giving them a sizable part of the story over Thor and Captain America. I liked this and it fleshed out the two characters for me.  Also it was clear that Whedon intended to kill Hawkeye as soon as you were introduced to his wife and family. Whedon was setting Hawkeye up like Goose from TopGun, who got cooked later on.  How that plays was clever, but may leave hearts broken.

The script retains some of the humour from the first film to counter the drama. The moment between Captain America and Thor was very well done.  James Spader as the voice of Ultron was cool, he was the perfect choice as the villain and despite being just a voice brought a nice presence to his scenes.

All in all the film was a good sequel, and set the ground work to continue the franchise(s) onward.  However I am unsure what Avengers 3 will be about or look like. If there is a new set of Avengers I will not be as keen to see it. I am simply not invested in those characters.

7 monkeys.

I'm ba-ack

Well yes slacky McSlackerson is back.  A hiatus due to taking my beautiful wife to Europe on our Honeymoon and then suffering with post Honeymoon doldrums (this is a real thing by the way not like Smurfs, Fibromialgia or the trickle down effect.) and general laziness has lead to a lack of posts.

But I am back and will soon post my opinion about the new Avengers movie. But to tide you over until then here is a picture of a comic that I think I can get my teeth into!

Yes according to this post Dark Horse comics have created this wonder of the modern age. I for one will be looking out for it. 

And for the record I always preferred Betty. 

Bayghazi or Fifty

Movies are a wonderful medium to convey ideas. Through spectacular visuals, evocative music and sound, a well written and intelligent movie can do more than entertain us. We can be moved, and inspired. We can love, hate, laugh and cry. Sometimes all from the same film. A great film can be more than fun, it can enrich us.

Important films tackle important events or issues, social, political, cultural or historical. They can shine lights on dark places, or educate us through empathy and informed dialogue. This is what  films can do. However we all know that some films are simply tell an entertaining story, and that is very important too.

Today I am not going to be disccussing either of these sorts of movie. 

American Sniper was a popular film. No let me rephrase that. American Sniper was a successful movie. I have not seen it, but by all accounts it was well crafted and had great performances from Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. However while many liked the film and saw it as a man who had blind faith in a cause at the expense of his family, it has also been equally criticised for being a fairy tale account of the Iraqi war and the man the film depicts. Some of my friends who have seen said the film said that it made them angry about it being a propaganda piece and a justification for the Iraqi invasion. 

Personally I can’t really comment as I have not seen it.

On 11 September 2012, a large group of militants attacked the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, and a second US compound nearby. Four men were killed including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The events of those events still resonate through American politics today. 

When studios or big producers see a formula then they quickly capitalise on it.The financial success of American Sniper is instrumental in events like Benghazi being made into a movie. If American Sniper was, at best, a high dramatized version of real events, then what can we expect to see with the upcoming two (yes two) films about Benghazi. Obviously people have decided to make movies about the tragic events of that day, and who will be creating a film about this unfortunate event? Well the Hollywood Reporter writes that there are two people who have purchased the rights so far, and they are.....

1. Michael Bay
2. Dana Brunetti

You are probably still reeling from the prospect of Bumble Bee and Optimis Prime battling with Libyan Militants to wonder who Dana Brunetti is? If you just clicked on the link you have just learnt that Mr Brunetti is one of the people that brought you  Captain Phillips  and Fifty Shades of Grey. 

Wicked!

Michael Bay has experience with depictions of historical events. He previous created his highly successful 'version' of the attack on Pearl harbour, and I see no reason why he won't treat the events at Benghazi in September 2012, with the same respect. Although now that he is more successful and influential, I can definitely envision that the Libyan Militants are actually members of the foot clan who are ruled over by Shredder aka Megatron.

Of course if you feel that you want a depiction of Bayghazi (working title) with less Giant Robots ( I know the concept of less giant robots seems insane, but consider Transformers 3), then perhaps we can consider the alternative?

It is Optimus Prime with a sword riding a dragon! How can this not be cool? Oh wait they Bay'd it. 

The more human story of a young female intern, Bella Swan, no Anna Steele, no Um Betty Iron, being taken hostage by a cool charismatic vampire, no um Businessman Um no I mean Militant leader. After he takes her hostage he shows her his dangerous world of sadomasochistic ideologies. But Bella DAMMIT, I mean Betty cracks through that cold exterior and releases love and exposes his humanity to the world. And then I guess he kills the ambassador? I understand that the fan fiction I mean screen play is under way now. 

Fifty Twilights of Benghazi makes more sense to me as a story. I mean you have a stalkerish misogynistic male character monitoring and trying to control the female characters every movement and there will be cables ties!



So the first story is going to be brought to you by a man whose concept of inventive narrative is a petrol bomb, and has the overt agenda of destroying the childhood of an entire generation. The second man brought you the creative retelling of a Captain Blighesque character into a sympathetic and empathetic hero, and in a innovative sweep provided audiences with a movie that was simultaneously creepy and disturbing while at the same time ludicrously cheesy and boring. To be fair that take some talent.

So yay boom crash yawn.  I suspect that one or both of these films will be released just in time for the 2016 US presidential election. Given Hilary Clinton's position as Secretary of State at the time of the attack in Bangahzi, these films will be an interesting foil to her campaign. Although it could backfire and make her look like a genius. Who knows?  

I am probably making a big call but I suspect that despite the events behind these films neither of them will convey any important evocative messages, or even be entertaining.  

But do not dispair, do not frown. Help is on the way. 

and here it is! and this!

Ok I am off to Europe this weekend with my wonderful and darling wife.  We intend to eat drink and be awesome. Thus I will be away for a while so please watch films, watch great films. And if you can't watch great films, watch dumb movies that are so bad they are awesome with your friends.  

And to all those who read this, I hope that every day you watch something, or read something that makes you be or feel awesome.