Mad Max: Feminist Propaganda?

With the release of the brilliant Mad Max: Fury Road came an outcry of dismay from several men's rights activists about how the movie is nothing more than a work of feminist propaganda, and that it ought to be boycotted at every cost. The main reason for this averse reaction is simple: the main character is arguably somebody other than the titular Max. In fact, it's Charlize Theron's 'Furiosa' who takes the leading role for most of the film, which defies many gender stereotypes we've had within action movies for a very long time. Does this mean that Fury Road is a man-hating, feminism-glorifying piece of cinema? Of course not. 

In the world of Fury Road, men are the overwhelmingly predominant gender. Villain Immortan Joe's hope of a future heir relies upon his five 'breeders', who he keeps locked up in his fortress, in the hope of producing a male child. Furiosa rescues these women and takes them far from Joe's evil grasp, trying to reach the promised 'green place' from where she came. However, during all of this, Max himself is present. Sure, he begins the movie captured and chained to the front of a car, but he's soon set free and is forced to side with Furiosa to ensure any chance of survival - and in that lies the key point. Max sides with Furiosa; he's not overshadowed by her. 

There's a handful of scenes that have made people particularly angry, one being a moment at which Max hands Furiosa a sniper in order for her to shoot at a far away target effectively. Three bullets remain in the gun, and Max shoots two - both of them miss. To save wasting all three, Max acknowledges that Furiosa's previous display of marksmanship is superior to his, and so he hands her the gun, which she places on his shoulder; using Max as a makeshift bi-pod. This scene doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Max is a man and Furiosa is a woman. An earlier scene shows how her talent with a gun surpasses that of Max's, and so she completes the task at hand. It's been established that Max is more of a regular guy than an all-out action hero, and so for him to be perfect at every stereotypically masculine skill would not only seem unrealistic, but go against the established narrative of the Mad Max series. 

Another point of contention that has riled up certain groups of people is that Fury Road's director George Miller hired Eve Ensler to talk to the five wives in the film (alongside others) in order to give a perspective of their situation. Eve is the writer of 'The Vagina Monologues', and is a woman's rights activist. Many took this as George Miller having a feminist agenda when producing the movie (though this wouldn't necessarily be a terrible thing), but Eve only offered insight and advice to some of the actors and actresses. If it results in a better, more grounded movie, then why would this be such a huge issue? 

The fact of the matter is that Furiosa is a strong, empowering female character who can easily stand alongside the likes of Ellen Ripley or Sarah Connor. This doesn't mean that Max is less than her; nor does it mean he's superior. In Fury Road, Max and Furiosa end up being equals, and both have a joint motivation: survival. How about, instead of being so concerned with the politics of a movie like this, we enjoy it as the amazing, exhilarating action film that it is? Having women in leading roles within movies isn't a terrible thing, and that should honestly go without saying. But we can still have our Jason Stathams and Sylvester Stallones, too. 

Because it's about equality, right? 

Mad Max: Fury Road (Review) - Fantastically Fuelled Action

Wow. That's all I can really say. After nearly two hours of non-stop action, it's hard to properly explain exactly what you've just seen. Mad Max: Fury Road is an insane, balls-to-the-wall action film at its most pure. It's minimal on dialogue, and packed to the brim with explosions, cars, and face-melting stunts that are an absolute joy to behold. Believe the hype: this is one of the best action films in years. 

The film opens with our hero Max (Tom Hardy) being captured by a group of albino savages, and taken back to their encampment. Led by fearsome dictator Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), this sinister oasis becomes Max's prison, as he is bled dry to fuel the mindless followers of Joe. Meanwhile, a mysterious driver of Joe's goes rogue, and takes his 'breeders' in search of her childhood home. Max joins this woman along the way, and mayhem ensues spectacularly. 

While the story is relatively interesting, it's little more than a vehicle to drive the relentless chaos forwards. Max is a man of few words, as are most of his allies; there's lengthy periods without any dialogue, but unlike artsy films such as Drive, these speechless segments are filled with chases and fire. The film itself is essentially a two-hour chase across the arid desert, and is predominantly a showcase for just how mental things can get. There's about 30 minutes of downtime littered throughout, which allows for some character development and expansion of the world, but Fury Road often opts for action instead of words. In fact, it's in these moments of solace that you'll find yourself moderately bored, waiting for the next huge event to spark things off once more. 

Back when Mad Max was first introduced to us back in 1979, Mel Gibson filled the shoes of the enigmatic protagonist. The first instalment was a vastly different movie from what we've got here now, but managed to become something of a cult classic abroad after its Australian conception. Throughout the three movies, Mel Gibson solidified himself as the quietly capable lead, but Tom Hardy does a brilliant job in revitalising the character of Max. Though he's lacking in dialogue, Hardy's Max is still a complex and battered man, which is especially shown through the brief yet interesting flashbacks. Don't worry though: you won't be missing out if you haven't seen the original trilogy...though do yourself a favour and watch The Road Warrior, at the very least. There's plenty of nods and references to this classic throughout Fury Road, too. 

Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy)

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Max isn't exactly the film's main character, however. While his name may be the one plastered all over the posters, it's Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who drives the movie - and plot - forwards. She's no damsel in distress either, and goes toe-to-toe with Max on several occasions. For years, the problem of weak female protagonists has been a huge area of contention for movie goers. Female heroes like Alien's Ripley and Terminator's Sarah Connor stand out as examples of empowering women in movies, and Fury Road's Furiosa can proudly stand alongside them. If you've ever complained about women's lacking presence in the action scene, then you owe it to yourself to see this movie. 

There's really nothing negative I can say about this film. Sure, the moments of downtime that are rare occasionally feel a little too slow, but they're necessary to make the action feel as intense as it does. Once you've seen a guy rocking out on a double guitar that shoots fire out of its end, you know you're in for a real treat. 

Verdict

Perhaps the biggest surprise for a film I've had in years, Fury Road solidifies its place as a modern-classic action masterpiece. It's ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd, and yet manages to keep you engaged and believing until the very end. I was sceptical that the pace could be held to the same heights as in the trailers, but the film succeeds to do so and then some. You'll come out of the cinema wanting to watch it all again, as every single scene is littered with details, and there's always so much going on amidst the fiery explosions and mayhem. Couple that with the frequency of practical effects instead of blatant CGI, and you've got yourself a real treat. See this movie. Like, now. 

"My name is Max. My world is Fire.

And Blood."

Star Wars Is Pretty Cool

So this past week I decided to fix a terrible mistake I hadn't got around to fixing; I watched the original Star Wars trilogy. I know: how can I possibly claim to be a fan of films without seeing what is quite possibly the most revered, critically acclaimed sci-fi series of all time? Well, the simple fact is that I hadn't ever decided to sit down and actually watch all three films in their entirely, similar to how I finally checked out Lord of the Rings in 2013 prior to the release of the second Hobbit movie. How did I find Star Wars? It's pretty great, actually. 

Now, you might be surprised to read that. No, I didn't think that they were some of the greatest movies ever put to screen, nor would I watch them all again obsessively. To be honest, I don't even think they're some of the very best sci-fi movies of all time (though The Empire Strikes Back would be the closest to this title). Maybe it's because they've been phenomenally over-hyped by literally centuries of fans, or maybe it's because I've just seen so many other sci-fi movies that I can't help but compare Star Wars to them, but I enjoyed this cult trilogy while it lasted...and I think that's okay. 

Before I get ahead of myself, I should probably clarify why I decided to finally check these films out. As you probably know, the latest teaser to J.J. Abrams' Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens was released just under two weeks ago, and needless to say, I found it pretty spectacular. I'd previously been subjected to the Star Wars universe through the brilliant games that had taken place there, like 2005's Lego Star Wars: The Video Game. Most people, however, praise the Star Wars: Battlefront series as being the pinnacle of Lucasarts' foray into the gaming world, and I'd be inclined to agree. Regardless, I'd say it's more than acceptable for somebody to get sucked into this world without ever watching the movies (like I was). After watching the films, though, I've now got a pretty detailed understanding of the context behind these games - a context which 99% of the population probably had many years before today. 

But back to the title of this article, and how Star Wars is 'pretty cool'. After finishing Episode IV: A New Hope (which was initially just referred to as 'Star Wars'), I found it to be a little slow, in all honesty. I could appreciate the charm of classic sci-fi presentation, and the now iconic transition shots of the screen just sliding from one scene to another, but I definitely wasn't shocked in awe at what I'd just seen. Even fan-favourite Han Solo (Harrison Ford) hadn't fully swayed me into fandom; primarily because of Ford's later role in the incredible Blade Runner, in which he plays a similar character with a disregard for authority. Maybe I left it too late to fully appreciate these beloved classics? 

Maybe. Or maybe it's okay to just enjoy something that everybody else loves. I've no doubt that this year's The Force Awakens will be something special, and with a new Battlefront game coming, we've certainly got a lot to look forwards to. Does me not loving Star Wars mean that I don't like the franchise as a whole? Of course not. It just means that while some people might choose to don their Stormtrooper armour and attend conventions, I'll instead enjoy the movies for what they are: entertaining, two-hour epics that tell an interesting - though slightly drawn-out - story. 

Also, if you haven't yet seen the trailer for Episode VII, you really ought to fix that: 

Avengers: Age of Ultron (Review) - Bigger, Louder...Better?

Let me start by saying this: Ultron (James Spader) is a brilliant villain. His motives are villainous, his appearance is downright scary, and his presence rivals some of the best on-screen antagonists we've had in recent memory. Additionally, he's not criminally underutilised like countless other villains are - there are more than a few scenes which he steals effortlessly. Marvel's excellent Guardians of the Galaxy presented us with a forgettable foe in the form of Ronan last year, and thankfully Age of Ultron manages to avoid repeating this blunder. Does that mean it's the best Marvel film made to this point? Definitely not. 

Now, before you stop reading in anger, let me say this: I really enjoyed Avengers: Age of Ultron. It upped the ante in every possible way, with a nigh apocalypse being threatened by an equally apocalyptic foe. All the favourites return, with a greater focus being put on underdog Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), most likely in an attempt to elevate him to the same level as Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr) and Captain America (Chris Evans). We're also given more depth to returning characters like Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), and that's never a bad thing. Basically, Age of Ultron is more in every imaginable factor. There's higher stakes; the characters are more fleshed out; the action is more intense. The problem is that 'more' does not instantly equate to 'better'. Nor does this mean that it's worse than what we've had before. The reason I'm slightly let down with Age of Ultron isn't because it's a bad movie, it's because it delivers exactly what you expect...and that's about it.

You've still got the witty banter between characters, and the moments of emotion shared in private. Seemingly out of nowhere, there's also a blossoming romance between Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and the aforementioned Black Widow / Natasha Romanoff, but it's hardly the crux of the whole film. If it weren't for the awesome villain Ulton, however, then Age of Ultron would be nothing more than 'just another Marvel movie'. Is that bad? No! Of course not! If you're a Marvel fan, then you'll love the constant action and tone, but there's nothing new that will bring in new fans. And in that lies the issue: it's just more of the same. 

Think of it this way: somebody's playing a song you enjoy, and you enjoy it so much that they feel the need to crank it to 11. You'll still enjoy the song (if be a little deafened), but soon you'll be moving on to another. That doesn't mean you've grown tired of the tune or lyrics, but eventually it'll get over-played to the point of annoyance. Avengers isn't quite at that point yet, but if Age of Ultron is anything to go by, then it's worryingly close. 

Ultron (James Spader)

When it gets it right though, it really gets it right. Some of the action sequences are jaw-dropping, to the point where it feels like you're watching a comic-book unfold before you. The fights between Ultron himself and the Avengers are particular highlights, because they offer a new challenge for the heroes to overcome, and the seemingly unbeatable nature of Ultron makes for some genuinely intense moments. Sure, certain fights drag on for way too long, but this is more a problem of action movies than of Age of Ultron specifically. One thing that does feel a little off about the film is the sometimes drastic swapping between comedy and impending doom. I'm all up for having humour in Marvel movies, and Guardians of the Galaxy provides an excellent example of a film that doesn't take itself too seriously. Unfortunately, there's times when Age of Ultron wants to have its cake and eat it. You can't try and convey that the world is literally ending, all the while having our protagonists cracking jokes like they're just hanging out. Have one then the other - don't try and blend the two. 

Verdict
Avengers: Age of Ultron is a worthy sequel, but one which plays it a little too safe to truly excel. It does its job, and you're entertained for a little over two hours, but doesn't experiment with many new ideas. Marvel have found what works and stuck with it, and why wouldn't they? If I made $1,000,000,000 then I doubt I'd be straying too far from the formula. 2018's Infinity War really needs to switch things up if it's going to keep from going stale, though. 

"You want to protect the world, but you don't want it 

to change. You're all puppets, tangled in strings...strings!"

Daredevil (TV Review) - Justice Is Blind

Netflix's Daredevil provides a refreshingly unique spin on the superhero genre: It takes the 'super' out of the word entirely. Well - for the most part. That's not to say it isn't an awesome show which you should definitely check out the instant you stop reading this. No, what I mean is that it chooses to ignore the overly-dramatic storylines and constant happy endings; instead opting for a much more down-to-earth approach. 

Unlike most Marvel (and DC, for that matter) properties, this Daredevil TV show commissioned by Netflix rejects the notion that all introductions to a character have to begin at square one, and show a basic origin-story. Episode 1 begins with lawyer Matt Murdock (Charlie Cox) already fighting crime in the dead of night, following a tragic childhood accident that left him permanently blind. Instead of losing all will to live, Matt chose instead to hone his skills and play with the cards he was dealt, training his senses to literal super-human capacity. When he's not incapacitating bad guys, Murdock works alongside long-time friend Foggy Nelson (Elden Henson), bringing down criminals in a more 'traditional' sense. After all, justice is blind. 

As the series progresses, we get to see Matt's gradual progression as a vigilante. After a few initial beatings, he's quickly able to dispatch entire rooms of foes in quick succession, usually only suffering a few blows of his own. A sequence at the end of the second episode shows just how perfectly some of this action is captured, with a fight scene that seems uncannily reminiscent of the iconic 'Corridor Fight' in Korean classic Oldboy - complete with a single, unbroken tracking shot. There's several moments like this littered throughout Daredevil: amazing set-pieces shown in a style that rivals a lot of what you'd see at a cinema. 

But how could we have a superhero without an equally iconic villain? Like the choice to call 'Daredevil' Matt Murdock throughout the series, the infamous 'Kingpin' is referred to throughout this 13-episode drama by his real name: Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio). Fisk isn't your typical villain, in that he actually possesses an human personality, along with real, complex emotions. Marvel could have quite easily made him nothing more than a sinister, lumbering foe for Matt to go up against, but we're instead gradually introduced to Fisk through hushed conversations and hesitant glances. Hell, initially he's only referred to as "my employer"; leaving you wondering in desperation as to what a man must be like to strike so much fear into the hearts of his enemies. Once we do get to meet the man himself, the character certainly isn't squandered. Fisk is just as complex a man as our hero Matt, and his awkward nature is rivalled only by his furious temper and scarily violent tendencies. Once you've seen a man decapitate somebody with a car door, it's hard to consider him human, and yet Daredevil somehow accomplishes this. Of course, you'd never cheer for him, but you begin to develop a certain empathy towards Fisk's troubled mind, and - though it sounds crazy - you find yourself understanding some of his brutal outbursts. It's definitely not a show for the faint of heart, but Daredevil's shocking violence doesn't seem out of place in such a bleak, crumbling city. 

Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio)

In fact, the only real complaint I'd have with the entire series would be the fact it strives to tell such a grounded, believable story, and yet Matt's powers appear so unbelievably...well, super. The show does a great job of conveying the importance of sound to somebody in Matt's position, but some of the things he manages to pull off are far beyond the realm of possibility. Sure, you're able to suspend your disbelief for the most part, but they certainly stretch that to the absolute breaking point. However, there's more than a few occasions that even the scales a little and see Matt taking a beating far greater than what he gives, so I'll forgive this minor problem. 


Verdict
If Daredevil proves anything, it's that Marvel have managed to conquer the small screen just as well as they have the large. Each episode tells a relatively self-contained story, and yet there's always a main-plot which flows effortlessly through everything. On occasion, there'll be multiple events happening simultaneously, but the show manages to mould them into one, cohesive sculpture. Even if you wouldn't consider yourself an avid comic-book fan, this is more than worth your time. And with a second season just announced, now's definitely the time to get on board. 

"I'm not seeking forgiveness for what I've done, Father.

I'm seeking forgiveness for what I'm about to do."

Chappie (Review) - A Disappointing Waste

I really wanted to like Chappie. The third movie by sci-fi director Neill Blomkamp, Chappie tries to tell a story of human corruption and deal with issues such as the ethics of robotics, as well as grand ideas such as humanity itself. Instead, it presents you with a group of detestable characters and expects you to empathise with them, or at the very least, put up with their abhorrent personalities until the mundane climax and inevitable ending. 

The film begins with at least a certain degree of promise. Set in a futuristic South Africa, the film opens with an introduction to the new mechanised police force, who lack the ability to be corrupt or ineffective. After one robot is rendered useless from an explosion, engineer Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) decides to repair it and test out his recently created artificial intelligence, in hopes of creating the first fully-conscious machine. However, Deon is kidnapped by a group of desperate criminals who demand that he hands over the robot in order to use it as an accomplice to their crimes. Held at gunpoint, Deon agrees, but only if he can visit frequently in order to teach Chappie's child-like mind how to think. 

However, rather than showing the development of Chappie and allowing you to marvel in how similar robots could be to humans, Chappie then decides to show two hours of the criminals (played by South African rap-rave group 'Die Antwoord') corrupting Chappie and turning him into one of their own. This wouldn't be so bad if the criminals had any sort of on-screen presence, but they're as cliché as they come. The decision to cast real-life musicians in roles which have them literally playing themselves was a terrible one, as neither of these miscreants have any kind of acting talent, and neither are particularly endearing. Also, many of the scenes in which they feature are accompanied by a selection of their music, which is frankly appalling. The biggest problem, however, is that towards the end, the film then portrays supposedly 'dramatic' scenes in which you're meant to feel sadness towards the violence depicted, but this simply isn't the case. 

In fact, Hugh Jackman plays a rival to Deon who is meant to be seen as the villain, but you're left hoping that he will succeed in wiping the scum off of the Earth. This is definitely not a good sign, and leads to you not caring about anyone in the film whatsoever. If I had to pick one character I warmed to, it would probably be Chappie himself, but even he is let down by poor character development and a lack of good supporting roles. Sure, there's some early scenes where it seems like Chappie may be going a certain path and truly questioning what is right and wrong, but then this is squandered by some terrible acting, dialogue, characterisation, and just general issues. 

If it seems like I completely resent Chappie, that's not quite the case. It is indeed a bad movie, but is far from the worst I've seen. I'm just bitterly disappointed, because it had such a good concept that was thrown aside in favour of a mundane, predictable story delivered by dreadful individuals. There's plenty of films which have the antagonist in a central role, so this isn't why I disliked the film so much. Movies such as No Country for Old Men, for example, have a bitterly evil character at their core, and yet still succeed based upon the performance of said character being excellent. Chappie fails this, and then some. 

Verdict
I honestly couldn't recommend you go and see Chappie, even if you're a huge fan of District 9 or even 2013's Elysium. It strives to tell a meaningful story about humanity and how easily a child-like mind could be influenced, but does it through such inane means that it just comes off as boring and lifeless. After about an hour I was already waiting for the film to end so that I could leave, which should speak far more than anything else. If you're craving some artificial intelligence sci-fi, go and watch the brilliant Ex Machina instead. 

"People are always fearful of something

they don't understand"

House of Cards: Season 3 (TV Review) - Frank's Back...Again

If you had told me that House of Cards would be one of my favourite TV shows back when the first season aired, I probably would have laughed in your face. Sure, it was good, but it was far from spectacular. Now, two seasons later, and I can firmly stand behind this statement. Not only is season 3 of this incredible show the best yet, but it ends on a cliffhanger which is shockingly unfair in the excitement it creates. 

Francis & Claire Underwood
(Kevin Spacey / Robin Wright)

Elevated from merely Mr. Underwood to Mr. President, Francis Underwood is a scarily powerful man. Not everybody agrees with him, and in fact most of this season shows just how controversial of a figure he is, but he's a powerful entity nonetheless. The season begins with Francis (Kevin Spacey) striving to nationalise his 'America Works' programme - a system which plans to raise employment exponentially across the United States. Early on however, Frank is driven to withdraw from the presidential vote in 2016...though this is only a minor setback in the Underwood's grand scheme. Meanwhile, Frank's wife Claire Underwood (Robin Wright) is determined to achieve power of her own, and hopes to do this by becoming head of the U.N. If season 1 was about uprising and 2 concerned treachery, then this instalment most certainly revolves around the absolute corruption of power. 

For anybody who has seen the show before, you'll know what I mean when I say that the previous season began with a fairly brutal episode. It dived head-first into the deep-end, and didn't pull any punches. Now, while this chapter of the Underwood story is definitely anything but slow, it doesn't feature quite the same level of intense suspense found previously. What this does contain, are countless moments of gripping conversation and subtleties which rival any number of scenes depicting high-octane action. Yes, this fuse is a slower burn than before; but it's one which leads to an extremely satisfying explosion at its climax. 

In terms of a television series replicating the same cinematic flair of a movie, House of Cards is easily miles ahead of most other content available right now. The cinematography is beautiful and aptly sinister, the acting is beyond entertaining, and the multiple, intricately linked story lines are as engaging as ever. Obviously, Kevin Spacey's performance as President Underwood is the stand-out for the series, but Robin Wright as Claire has more of a presence this time around than ever before. For every action by Frank, there's an equally interesting reaction from Claire, all of which bubbles to a shocking conclusion setting up season 4 - no doubt to be released this time next year. 

In terms of things I didn't like with this season, they're small but still worth mentioning. Some plot-lines which flow seamlessly in the earlier half of the season eventually dry-out and disappear later on, which is a little disappointing, as they are as interesting as anything else - such as the rivalry borne between Frank and the Russian President, Victor Petrov (Lars Mikkelsen). Also, particular moments which are intended to shock and surprise fail to do so because they're so apparent early on, but the truly sinister twists hit their mark where intended. 

Verdict

Season 3 of House of Cards is an interesting predicament: It's book-ended by episodes which aren't quite as thrilling as the previous instalment's, and yet the chapters within these manage to escalate it beyond anything that has came before. Yes, I believe it to be the best season yet and some of the finest television I've seen, but that's because I have such an investment in these characters after two prior seasons building their characters. For an outsider, the plot of season 3 may seem comparatively weaker to at least the second season, but the brilliant monologues delivered by Frank and the insidious tone maintained throughout still mean that it is well-worth a watch. 

"You wanna know what takes real courage? 

Holding it all together, when the stakes are this high."