Reviews

It is, as if, George Miller really wanted to prove, that he can still produce the best vehicle chase scenes in a movie. The film moves along, for the most part, at break neck speed, leaving little time for a breather. For those who aren't familiar with the original trilogy, a brief explanation from Max, about himself, starts the film. For any fan of the originals, the way it was executed will of been a disappointment.

Max feels less important in this film. His character is not the centre of the story, but more a part of it. Perhaps this is a good thing however. Tom Hardy's version of Max Rockatansky feels more trying. Mel Gibson made that character his own. It was pulled off naturally, without any need to be macho or overtly crazy. Tom Hardy's portrayal looks and sounds more akin to some of his previous efforts, (see 'Bronson').

But that was always going to be the inevitable disappointment for fans of the originals, trying to enjoy a new Mad Max with a different actor filling in the shoes of such an iconic character.

The film as a whole, wears all the expected fabric of a post apoc' world, but only this time it is worn by a new breed. Theirs plenty to see in this revamped vision, for fans of the old films to enjoy. The insane characters and their surroundings wouldn't look out of place in Road Warrior or Beyond Thunderdome.

The pace of the film is very different, and for some part, feels too much, too rushed, like a sugar rush. This was however, Miller's intention. To make a film, that comes at you like a steam train on fire, driven by a load of lunatics.

If you treat the original trilogy like a family, then they would all be siblings, born of the same parents; Byron Kennedy (RIP) & George Miller. Fury Road then, feels more like a step brother. Related, but different from the rest.

For the younger generation, or just those that have never seen the other three, this new entry, will either introduce them to the original trilogy, or end up being just another action flick.

I personally will find it very hard not to stamp my biased opinion on this review, being that the first movie from (1979) is one of my all time favourites. I find Fury Road, without heart. And to me, that was always my connection with the central character 'Max'. Even when he is the burnt out shell of a man, in Road Warrior.

Mel Gibson just seemed to own that character. Every little nuance of expression, and he sells it so naturally. The chaotic pace of Fury Road, like a trailer to a modern video game, never gives Hardy the chance to really take over the role and do it justice. Instead we are mainly treated to grunts and scowls.

To me, the movie as a whole, is typical of what Hollywood are dishing out. It seems to cater for the below average attention span.

Its popcorn fodder, with plenty of crash, bang, wallops! But no substance, and hardly an excuse to even call this a 'Mad Max' movie. Instead, it should be re-named; 'Furiosa', the name of Charlize Theron's character.

The first time I tried to watch Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween, I turned it off about 30 minutes into it. Its always very testy ground trying to enjoy someone else's version of a film you hold so dear as a testament to its genre, especially in an industry full of remakes!

So when a sequel was made by the same guy, I dismissed it as another cash-in like most sequels, even worse, sequels of remakes.

However, as time passed, I guess I've learnt to be a little bit more forgiving. It is inevitable that at some point, films you love are going to be remade. Unfortunately, some of them hold no justification for its existence, as they give no further insight into the subject, or at least give an entertaining and different approach with a steady eye.

So I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween again. We have to put aside the original version to enjoy this. The original Michael Myers was more mysterious, almost ghostly in his presence, and Dr. Loomis encouraged this feel by the way he acted. In the new version, they wanted to give a fresh angle, more brutal, more insight into WHY Michael Myers is a killer, and the new Dr. Loomis is very different, intelligent, but devious, cowardly yet desires attention.

Not forgetting that Rob Zombie has a penchant for white trash hillbilly inbred types, he flesh's out his own vision of the Myers family to give justification for Michael Myers. He doesn't want the mask Michael wears to be an excuse for hidden identity like the original, it is now mearly a symbol Michael chooses to use, and of course sets him apart, we identify him with the mask, but we also know who and where he comes from.

I can understand why people did not like this approach compared to the mystery of the original, disregarding the many sequels and the ridiculous plots. Halloween II starts where the first left off, Michael's body disappears, and 2 years then pass to show us how the victims are coping in everyday life. I've read people complain about Laurie Strode in this film, and how annoying she is. I didn't find her to be that bad. Also people didn't like the dream sequences Michael keeps having of his mother at every turn. But Zombie is trying to show us that Michael is haunted by his mother, and this signifies his mental instability as well.

Its a brutal vision of Michael Myers, the deaths are quite horrific and the film rounds the story off in a satisfying end that makes you think but also you know that another sequel wont happen, at least not by the same person. Watch the film with an open mind, forget the original, and enjoy the violence for all its worth.