Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Year: 2015
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, Michael Arndt
Starring: Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, and Max von Sydow.

Synopsis is here:

This is going to be a difficult one to start. So I’ll go with the large revelation first. I’m not a Star Wars fan. I admire their technical prowess. I respect their position they hold within mainstream cinema. To a point. However, as a film goer who did not watch these films at a young, impressionable age, I do not hold Lucas’ space opera as the benchmark for nearly all cinema. Watching the hype of The Force Awakens take hold of my social media feeds, general media feeds and my workplace was more irritating than encouraging. I now have more understanding of how non-football fans feel during every World Cup.

My dismissive views of the saga will feel, to some, that I shouldn’t review the most anticipated film of the year, nee decade (Revenge of the Sith was 2005). I myself find it annoying that in order to be part of popular cultural conversation, I must now binge on T.V show seasons within a day, have general knowledge of Kim Kadashian’s movements and hold a view on Star Wars. A view that if not perversely uncritical and overwhelmingly positive, then death threats are abound.

It’s safe to say I went into my Saturday morning screening with a sense of trepidation. I dread to think how JJ Abrams must have felt with the pressure to deliver a film which must be considered as perfect to many people. Especially with the sour taste of Lucas’ over digitalised prequels.
I may not hold Star Wars as the cinematic standard and you won’t find me hastily slapping The Force Awakens on any end of year lists. I will say, however, that JJ Abrams has delivered an enjoyable, progressive and light entertainment.

There’s a lot of pleasure to be taken from The Force Awakens, mostly because Abrams keeps hold of many of the things that Star Wars’ does well. The impressive world building, the strong sense of scale and scope and some truly wondrous visuals. This is combined with an eclectic and spirited cast who sell film’s emotional beats and crummy expositional dialogue with aplomb.

The eye candy and characters do well to cover up the fact that plot wise, the film hasn’t too much to say. Abrams may have been wise to keep much of the structure of A New Hope and doesn’t deviate wildly from elements as he did previously with Star Trek (2009). Unfortunately, while the film reminds us of the archetypes and motifs that fans will feel comfortable with, the lack of risk taken leaves us with a narrative that feels a little flat and mildly predictable. The film also has that irritating issue comes with a lot of modern franchises in that, if you have not immersed yourself within the universe, then filling in the dots can feel cumbersome and confounding.

What The Force Awakens misses with a truly engaging story (I did zone out a few times), delivers with the fact that everyone involved gives it their all. There are moments in which Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher appear to age backwards in front of our eyes. It’s certainly clear that Ford feels more comfortable here than he did with those crystal skulls. It’s Abrams’ blooding of the new guard that is the most eye opening. John Boyega and Daisy Ridley are both given moments to shine and run with things with the right amount of vigour. Adam Drivers off beat speech rhythms makes him perfect for his role of Kylo Ren. It’s also a performance that’s far more emotive than expected. The same can also be said for Lupita Nyong'o who’s Maz Kanata has a moment that holds the type of gravitas that we’d only expect from the aforementioned Ford and Fisher. As for Oscar Issacs? Well, that guy is just made of charm.

Much like Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), the cast also highlights the need for progressiveness within the modern blockbuster. The film’s diversity never feels shoehorned and despite the narrative issues, provides fresher perspectives and stronger representation. Ninjas Kanata helps highlight just how tone deaf Jar Jar Binks really was. Meanwhile Boyega and Ridley playing center stage holds the possibility to pay dividends for younger audiences, such is the forward thinking by Abrams.

Indeed, that’s the point with Star Wars. The film will appeal to fans young and old, but its set pieces, colour and toys should delight a new generation of young sci-fi fans. More so than Lucas’ prequels. The drab trade federations and midi-chlorians aren’t found here. Only Millennium Falcon thrills and lightsabre duels. The film’s oddly named characters and planet hopping will unlikely change the minds of more hardened non-fans. However, The Force Awakens kept this non-fan entertained from start to finish. Even if I’d need Wikipedia to remember the character names. I still don't consider myself a Star Wars fan. But consider my viewpoint somewhat softened.

 

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road

Director: George Miller
Screenplay: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris
Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Rosie Huntington Whiteley, Riley Keough, Zoë Kravitz, Abbey Lee, Courtney Eaton

Synopsis is here

I refrained from writing anything about Mad Max: Fury Road for a few days after watching as I wanted to get a decent grasp of what I saw. My reaction afterwards was one of confounding awe. An odd term, yet the best I feel I can come up with. I was dumbfounded. How did George Miller manage to slip a $150 Million Ozpolitation chase movie past corporate studio heads? I guess the Oscar and massive box office for Happy Feet (2006) helped. Though that only seemed posed more queries. That said. It helps display the type of maverick Miller is. Fury Road feels like an exclamation mark on a varied and dynamic sentence.

At age 70, Miller hasn’t appeared to have lost any of his ability to draw kinetic energy. Nor has it taken away any of his attentiveness. In an interview with Vanity Fair; Miller is quoted about his wife Margaret Sixel editing the movie, “You have to edit this movie, because it won’t look like every other action movie.” It’s wonderful to see the value and foresight within that action. There’s been much talk of the Mad Max’s feminist leanings. Including Men’s Rights websites losing their collective shit over the positioning of females within the movie. The beauty of Miller’s directional choices, both in the narrative and crew is that it’s once again highlighted the issues that restrains creativity and showed up an audience who still responds strongly to patriarchal hegemony. People who’d rather see creative stagnancy by an upright, uptight status quo.

George Miller has never been one to go through the paces and follow the regular state of affairs. It’s hard not to laugh at activists considering Fury Road as “feminist propaganda” when they should know that Miller directed The Witches of Eastwick (1987), not only a favourite film of mine, but the type of movie which displays that the balls have always been in that court. One of interesting women and curious narratives. Then again, when such angry men mistook an Australian series as a piece of Americana, you can gage the debate level.

In addition to this. Fury Road is a sequelboot that isn’t even on the same thread as the films that came before it. Each visit to the wasteland has always had a differing slant. The original Mad Max was a grubby revenge thriller. The second film an oil fuelled Rio Bravo. The third? A frustrating near Amblin-style adventure. Fury Road comes across like a 70’s B-movie chase movie remixed for modern audiences. Unlike the previous movies, Fury Road cares very little about breathing space. The film drives and spurs on relentlessly, with each new sequence delivering an inventive obstacle for its anti-heroes to navigate.

This does cause issues with some of the development of the character and narrative. Despite being quite long for an action movie, the film doesn’t explore its characters with the depth that it perhaps could. Max Max 2 (1981) still shows itself to be the most complete entry, while Fury Road is far more interested in its vaulting goons and suicidal foot soldiers to provide any real clarity to the film’s background events. Yet what I love about Fury Road is how it sweats, crunches and bleeds. It might not feel like it’s telling the whole story, but the film still shows that its scripted and constructed to display character through action and visuals over bland dialogue. Hardy once again is less a man of words and more a creature of physical input. Max is one of his more tactile performances. Charlize Theron not only gains the ire of so called male activists, but reminds us of just how varied she’s willing to be as an actress. Her role of the wildly named Imperator Furiosa brings out a fiercely terse performance. The type of display we can often forget Theron holds in her locker.

Both lead performances as well as the kinetic cinematography and editing illustrate that the world of Mad Max is one of physical expression over anything else. It’s grand outlandish set pieces detail the fall of man little by little. What makes Miller’s film so astonishing at times is not only just how beautifully balletic the film’s action is, but just how textured Fury Road can be. The sparks of twisted metal is glorious to watch. However, Fury Road shows us a crumbling decent into madness in which idols are false, slavery is rife and your body is a commodity. Post-apocalyptic it may be, but a quick yank of the thread of the fantastic and we’re suddenly a little closer to home.

I consider the men’s activist sites again. What they supposedly stand for. The belief that no one can bark orders at Mad Max. If they were to watch the film, I wonder what their answer would be to the question sprawled on the walls of The Wasteland: Who killed the world? It’s interesting to see people wishing to boycott a hellish future that in the world of fiction they would not only help to create so quickly but already seem to be a part of. That, to me, is the method in Millers madness.

DVD Review: The Rover

Year: 2014
Director: David Michôd
Screenplay: Joel Edgerton, David Michôd
Starring: Guy Pearce, Robert Patterson

Synopsis is here

The Rover is a brutally grim apocalyptic thriller set 10 years after a "collapse" which ravaged Australia, possibly the world. As we enter this world, we see Australia as a sparse and deadened wasteland ravaged by the titular "event". The collapse could possibly refer to an event that has occurred within Eric (Pearce); the protagonist of the feature. If the exterior event displays the degradation of the materials we currently take for granted, then the insular collapse inside Eric is a crumbling of character and spirit. Despite this, there is a defiance within which we don't fully understand until the film's final moments. The final act by Eric will frustrate, upset and maybe even hearten. However, for a film goer like myself, writing this a day after viewing, it may also be difficult to forget.

The Rover is a lean cut of a film. There's little in terms of plot to really grasp on to, and that works in its favor. Pearce's Eric is drowning his demons in a bar before three thieves make off with his car. By chance, he captures the lead thief's brother (Robert Patterson) and the two of them work towards finding the trio and the missing vehicle.

David Michôd's second feature is much more of a mood piece than a solid set adventure. The film is far more interested in the brittleness of those who have lost everything, than a clear destination. An underlying tension pulses through many of the scenes. We find Pearce's Eric already nearing the brink of being mentally shattered. The theft of his vehicle only pushes him further down the decline. The word hardened doesn't give the man justice. Pearce again shows the type of intense performance that, we sometimes forget that he's very good at (the last thing I saw him in was the forgettable Iron Man 3 (2013))

Robert Patterson brings a jumble of man-child tics together to unleash a transformative display. Once again stepping away from the glittery vampire movies that placed him on the map, his role of Reynolds has a slight "Sling Blade (1996)" vibe to proceedings and yet, Patterson still manages to hold his own in an expressive performance that still manages to capture the despondent nature of the film.

Visually stark and with a hard edged tone that is difficult to shake off, The Rover doesn't bring everything together with the same completeness as other desolate features such as The Proposition (2008), nor does it have the same kinetic energy that the likes of Mad Max brought to post-apocalyptic worlds. But if Mad Max was about the insanity of staying mobile when everything is depleted, The Rover taps into the insular feelings of emotions themselves breaking down that Max only really held as a side note. There's the same cold feelings of dread felt here that could be found in the likes of Wake in Fright (1971) and The Road (2009), although The Rover slips at fully taking us into the world as those two examples did. That doesn't mean The Rover can't stand on its own two feet. It just means it holds good company.