DTV Cinema: Ninja (2009) / Ninja: Shadow of a Tear (2013)

Director: Isaac Florentine

Cast: Scott Adkins, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Mika Hijii, Miles Anderson

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 86 min

Ninja is a direct to video film from Israeli director Isaac Florentine, well known for his martial arts films and many collaborations with British action star Scott Adkins (Special Forces, The Shepherd, Undisputed II and III, Close Range, etc). It's worth noting that Ninja was released straight to video one month before Warner Bros' big budget and similarly titled ninja film, Ninja Assassin, in 2009. Therefore, one might assume that Ninja was trying to ape off of Ninja Assassin's success and release Asylum Pictures style. And while that assumption is somewhat true, it's worth mentioning that Ninja and Ninja Assassin are entirely different from one another, other than that they are both Americanized efforts at ninja entertainment.

The film tells the story of a martial arts dojo in Japan whose sensei protects the Yoroi Bitsu, a case concealing the weapons and armor of the ninja warrior. The sensei's top two students, Casey Bowman (Scott Adkins) and Masazuka (Tsuyoshi Ihara) both clash with one another in their task to learn martial arts and to earn their master's respect. However, Masazuka's anger gets the best of him and his sensei bans him from the school for life. In fear of the Yoroi Bitsu's safety, the sensei sends Casey and his daughter Namiko (Mika Hijii) to America in order to protect the case. After Masazuka returns to the dojo and slaughters everyone, he heads to New York City in order to kill Casey and to steal the Yoroi Bitsu.

Ninja is a flawed, albeit solid, direct to video actioner that ranks higher on the direct to video scale than many of Seagal and Van Damme's earliest DTV efforts. It pays tribute to the ninja craze of the 80s with its hokey plot elements and copious amounts of ninja sword play. The ninja sub-genre is mainly remembered due to Cannon efforts such as Enter the Ninja, Revenge of the Ninja, and the American Ninja series. Even though Ninja isn't all that much better than those 80s films, few Americanized ninja films were ever good. Therefore, remove your nostalgia glasses and remember that ninja cinema has always been low budget and hinged upon basic as nails plots. 

Florentine hinges his ninja antics on a fairly routine plot that is serviceable enough to draw the viewer in but never enough to keep them fully engaged. The film meets the bare minimum of what an action film should do thanks to its plentiful action sequences, distinct mythology, and heroic characters. It's downfall lies in its low budget and hokey plot that prevents it from being a theatrical quality effort. Stock music effects, obvious sets, and weak green screen make for the film's most painful moments. One can see how Florentine and Adkins could be disappointed in the film due to these budgetary restraints. I can partially forgive bad green screen effects (such as the moment when Ihara ziplines from atop a building), but the repeated selections of stock music and sound effects simply grated my ears. The film also features several hokey plot elements, such as a cult-like monk clan that makes up for the film's cannon fodder and the ninja ability to squirrel glide off of a building, that make for a good self aware laugh or two.

Fortunately, Florentine apes Warner Bros.' Ninja Assassin with a selection of fairly practical action sequences that mainly rely upon stuntmen and acrobactic actors over computer generated gore and digital nonsense. The always fantastic Scott Adkins shows off his impressive moves throughout several solid fight scenes, especially in a massive brawl against the entire gang of cult-like monks. Whenever Ninja tries to ape Ninja Assassin's heavy gore with digital blood and limb dismemberment, it falls apart. On the other hand, when Ninja focuses on pure hand to hand combat and physical brawls, it excels where its theatrical counter part fails. Florentine and Adkins aren't just a throwaway duo of action filmmakers; they are two of low budget cinema's very best and arguably Ninja's greatest asset. 

Ninja also excels because it provides its hero with a note worthy villain. Tsuyoshi Ihara (13 Assassins) gives the best performance as the jealous Masazuka that he possibly can with the material that he has to work with. Even though his character is one noted, he is also menacing and determined, which is more than you can say about most DTV villains. Masazuka steals the show as an unstoppable force of evil whose quest against Casey and Namiko resembles the T-800's goal in The Terminator. After all, Masazuka scores most of the film's kills, endlessly chases after the duo, and massacres a police station full of officers, just as the T-800. Florentine is lucky to have scored an actor such as Ihara because he brings major acting chops to the film's hokey low budget proceedings.

Ninja easily could have been a cheap copycat of Ninja Assassin in both its title and genre-infused goals. Fortunately, the film was handled by genre pros Florentine and Adkins and makes for an underrated viewing experience that all action fans should give a whirl at least once. While far from theatrical quality, Ninja is one of the better DTV films to have been made in the last 15 years.

Rating: 6/10 - Despite its hokey plot elements and low budget effects, Ninja is a fairly solid DTV effort with some fantastic action sequences and a menacing villain.

Director: Isaac Florentine

Cast: Scott Adkins, Kane Kosugi, Mika Hijii, Shun Sugata

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 95 min

*SPOILERS BELOW*

Ninja: Shadow of a Tear finds both Florentine and Adkins returning to the series after the release of several of Adkins' highest profile projects such as Zero Dark Thirty, Expendables 2, and Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning. Stripped of the previous film's attempts at cashing in on Ninja Assassin, Ninja: Shadow of a Tear (or Ninja II) is more of a stripped down revenge thriller in comparison to its hokier predecessor. The sequel is more of an honest collaboration between Florentine and Adkins due to the film's grounded plot and plentiful fight sequences. Unfortunately, Ninja II is nothing but a brutal and dour revenge film in which Adkins' character murders many unnecessary people on his quest to avenge his wife's murder. Say what you want about Ninja, but at least that film was more fun to watch than this downer of a revenge film.

Ninja II picks up a few years after the events of the first film with both Casey and Namiko married and running her father's dojo together. When Casey goes to a jewelry store to buy his wife a commemorative pendant, two thugs attack him and a fight ensues. Later that night, Casey goes to the store to buy some food for his wife, and returns home to find her murdered. Distraught, Casey seeks solace in his old friend Nakabara (Kane Kosugi), a sensei of a dojo in Bangkok, Thailand. Nakabara believes that Goro, a powerful drug lord, is to blame for Namiko's death and that he is enacting vengeance on her and Nakabara's family names due to past grievances. Therefore, Casey straps on his ninja suit and goes after Goro.

Even though Ninja II features far more grounded fight sequences and extremely minimal digital effects, the film's action still leaves something to be desired despite the simplistic plot that surrounds it all. Ninja II is jam packed with wall to wall action for the entirety of its 95 minute run time. Unfortunately, many of its fights serve the plot in no way at all. Take the fight between Casey and a group of unknowing dojo members or his brawl in an outdoors bar against several drunk patrons. Both of these fights may be technically sufficient, but neither are necessary in an otherwise overly action packed sequel that exists purely to deliver punch after punch.

The character of Casey Bowman is completely revamped for the sequel in which he turns into more of an anti-hero who murders and beats down people undeserving of pain. Whereas Adkin's Casey was a bad ass cornball in the previous film, here he is nothing but a vessel of pain and unsuppressed rage. In retrospect, Casey's quest for vengeance is entirely misguided because he takes Nakabura's information at face value and ends up massacring countless police officers, criminals, and drug lords who had nothing to do with his wife's murder in the first place. The film's "real" plot doesn't kick off until the halfway mark in which Nakabura uses Casey to massacre his drug lord competition. Ninja II, much like Taken 3, purposefully misdirects the viewer in order to throw a last second twist in there to make the film appear clever. Talk about a slap in the face.

I hate when action films pull the rug out from under the viewer like this because it makes most of the film's body count and action entirely useless in retrospect. A straightforward and predictable revenge thriller would have been more serviceable than trickery such as this. The entire plot is ultimately an excuse to come up with a reason to pit Scott Adkins, one of direct to video cinema's greatest stars, against Kane Kosgui, the son of ninja cinema's greatest star, Sho Kosugi. By the time Casey and Nakabura went head to head for their final showdown, I could not give a care in the world about the outcome because I felt lied too and ultimately deceived.

That Ninja II is technically superior to its technically flawed predecessor is ultimately depressing. It's a shame that Ninja II couldn't pair a great story and character motivation to its rather excellent fight sequences that continue to prove that Florentine is one of action cinema's greatest directors. The sequel, although tonally different and far grittier, simply proves to be a showcase of a misdirected and gullible man who goes on a murder spree. It remains to be seen whether or not Adkins and Florentine will return to the Ninja series, but I give them my permission to bid the series farewell. Unless the two can conjure up a story that doesn't betray the viewer and their character, than I'm out.

Rating: 5/10 - Despite a massive selection of A-grade fight sequences, Ninja II crumbles under its misleading plot and ninja-like deception.

Link This: Close Range (2015) - DTV Review

Director: Isaac Florentine

Cast: Scott Adkins, Nick Chinlund, Tony Perez, Jake La Potz, Scott Evans

Country: United States

Rating: Not Rated

Run Time: 85 min

Hey everyone, I had the pleasure of checking out an advanced screener of Isaac Florentine's latest action film starring Scott Adkins, the awesome Close Range. The film has a few DTV issues here and there, but is mostly a fantastic action film with an amazing finale. Check out the review here.

Spectre (2015) - Theatrical Review

Director: Sam Mendes

Cast: Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Dave Bautista, Christoph Waltz

Country: United States / United Kingdom

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 148 min

The most damning truth about Spectre, the 24th Bond film and Daniel Craig's fourth time out as the character, is that it never amounts to being anything more than 'just another Bond film.' Sam Mendes directed the previous entry in the series, Skyfall, to great success and helped revamp the series back to its 60s roots. Skyfall is so beloved by Bond fans that many declare it to be the best Bond film of them all, or without a doubt one of the very best. Unfortunately, Mendes' second time around is a huge letdown and proof that both he and Craig are simply going with the motions. Spectre, one of the most boring and over bloated Bond films to date, proves that it is time to recast the Bond role and to put the franchise in someone else's hands. 

Despite Spectre's over long run time and dull action sequences, it is still a Bond film after all. There's no denying that an average or bad Bond film is infinitely more satisfying than any average or bad standalone action picture. Therefore, the film still looks beautiful despite its otherwise hollow plot. The outfits are incredible, the locations gorgeous, and some of the action rock solid. Unfortunately, nothing here is filled with worthwhile material of any sort. If I were to describe Spectre as a piece of furnishing, it would be that of an ornate vase that looks beautiful on the outside, but has utterly nothing under its surface.

The Day of the Dead. A fitting holiday for a film as dead as this.

Spectre starts things right by getting back to the Bond tradition of starting off the film with the infamous gun barrel sequence in which the actor walks across screen, turns, and shoots at the audience. It also plays to tradition by opening with an exciting action scene that sets off both the film's plot and excitement. Unfortunately, this opener set during a Day of the Dead parade in Mexico City is nothing short of dull, despite a rather impressive tracking shot. The film than segways into its title sequence accompanied by Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall," a solid Bond song, although mostly forgettable coming off the heels of Adele's now iconic "Skyfall" theme.

The plot kicks off when Bond discovers a tape left by M (Judi Dench) on the heels of her death. She reveals to Bond that he must locate and kill a man named Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz). Therefore, Bond drops off the grid after being grounded by the new M (Ralph Fiennes) and goes in search of Oberhauser and his mysterious Spectre organization. Along the way, Bond teams up with Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), the daughter of Quantum's Mr. White, and repeatedly encounters Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista), a mute muscular member of Spectre, in his search for Oberhauser. 

Spectre tries to connect all of Craig's previous Bond films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall) with a grand villain and organization who was ultimately behind all of Bond's pain. Bond discovers that the lead villains from his previous adventures were all apart of Spectre and that Oberhauser is the grand orchestrater of all of his pain. While this idea may sound cool, it ultimately proves to be wasteful, as Bond responds in no way to such a revelation and Oberhauser in no way adds up to be the villain capable of such pain. In retrospect, this revelation of every villain being connected with one another is completely ridiculous and total crap. No previous screenwriter or director probably felt that their villain was connected to the previous one. Therefore, all of this is simply last minute retconning in which Spectre's current screenwriters (who also wrote Skyfall) thought it would be clever to connect every one of Craig's films in order to make his Bond adventures a continuity of their own.

The octopus of death.

Spectre has a simplistic plot that should have resulted in satisfying action and story. Unfortunately, the film is nothing but a bore. Spectre's biggest weakness is that no through line connects everything together. Bond simply wanders from foreign country to foreign country or set piece to set piece without a care in the world. The film relies entirely upon formula, but injects none of that formula's pieces with energy or tension. This proves to be extremely frustrating because Mendes spent all of Skyfall rebooting Bond back to his roots. Therefore, now that Mendes has a chance to make an old fashioned Bond adventure reliant upon established formula, he delivers one of Bond's most boring adventures yet. It's surprising that Skyfall and Spectre come from the same director, as one is breathtaking and masterful while the other snooze-inducing and forgetful. Mendes has confirmed that he will not return to the franchise after Spectre, as he only intended to wrap up the story that he started in Skyfall. However, I cannot agree more with Mendes' departure, as the director (as well as Craig), should move on from the franchise and let someone else take over its reigns.

This leads into another one of the film's biggest problems, Craig's performance. Craig practically sleepwalks through the entire film and proves that he truly is over the franchise and character once and for all. It's a damn shame though, because Craig's energetic performances in the likes of Casino Royale and Skyfall earned him the title as the best Bond since Sean Connery, a high praise if there ever was one. However, it's clear that Craig is done with the series based on his emotionless turn in Spectre. It remains to be seen if Craig will for certain return for a fifth installment, but I for one declare that MGM should step away from the franchise for another four or five years and recast the role. As to how Craig and an as yet undetermined director can deliver a solid fifth Craig-fronted Bond entry is beyond me.

Seydoux makes for a fine Bond girl and comes out the most unscathed of any actor in the film. She gives a good performance as a beautiful and tortured daughter of a corrupt father who finds love in James Bond of all people (although I doubt that love will last). The most awesome character in the entire film is clearly Mr. Hinx, a mute and brutish villain who recalls Goldfinger's Odd Job and Moonraker's Jaws. He kicks the most ass and has a fantastic fist fight against Bond on a moving train that stands out as the film's best action scene. All of the franchise's returning characters, such as M, Q, Moneypenny, and Mr. White, all do fine work, even though they have very little worthwhile to work with. 

Say the password: "Fidelio."

The biggest disappointment of the entire film is its main villain portrayed by Christoph Waltz. Waltz is one of the current generations best actors, haven given incredible performances in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Unfortunately, his turn *spoiler* as the franchise's newest Blofeld *spoiler* is extremely disappointing. Not only is he barely in the film, but he hardly leaves an impression for the few scenes that he has to work with. Javier Bardem's Silva also had little screentime in Skyfall, but he was an infinitely more interesting and devious character than the emotionless Oberhauser. It's almost impossible to believe that such a lame villain is responsible for the deaths of everyone that James ever loved and that he unleashed all of those previous villains on him as well.

The final nail in the coffin is Spectre's surprisingly boring action sequences. Although filled to the brim with car chases, shootouts, and fist fights, Spectre is one of the most hollow action films in recent memory. Most of the action scenes are entirely devoid of tension or stakes and play out like cut scenes from a video game. They may be filled with moments of greatness, such as the stunt where Bond rips the top of a parked car off with his car or when he launches a wing-less plane through a house, but they mostly pad out the running time and move Bond further along on his adventure. Take the scene where Bond escapes Oberhauser's torturous hideout. Once he heads outside, he starts gunning down henchmen left and right with the littlest of difficulty. He makes it look so easy and barely makes an effort to take cover or even aim down sight! Such hollow and empty action scenes like these populate the entire film and make the viewer question how $300 million could be flushed down the toilet like so.

As I stated in the introduction of this review, Spectre is still a Bond film, and that means beautiful locations, lush production values, gorgeous costumes, and awesome cars galore. There's something to be said about a film that costs $300 million, even if it is as hollow as Spectre. Incredible production value and gorgeous cinematography can go a long way in redeeming a bad film, and Spectre does just this. The film's brownish color scheme makes for a nice foil to Skyfall's gorgeous blues. The car chase in Rome, while particularly dull, features two incredible looking vehicles drifting through the night. The film's plentiful outfits are also fantastic, especially Bond and Swann's ever changing wardrobes. Spectre always looks great, even though its content isn't.

Bond and Swann look for a reason to care in the open desert.

Craig has confirmed that he has one more Bond film on his contract. While I would prefer for a Bond actor to go out on a high note, Craig has a lot to make up for after his worst Bond entry yet. Something radical has to be done for the next Craig fronted adventure, as Spectre proves that pure formula doesn't do much. Spectre may not be as bad as silly Bond outings like Die Another Day and A View to a Kill, but the Bond tradition proves that a 'funny bad film' is more entertaining than a 'boring bad film.' Spectre joins the list of increasingly lousy sequels this year, thereby tainting its franchise as much the disappointing Taken 3, Furious 7, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Terminator: Genisys. While I could see myself revisiting any one of Craig's previous Bond adventures any day, I need to separate myself from Spectre for at least a year or so before giving it another chance. Recommended for die hard Bond heads, but most definitely not recommended for those who don't bleed for the franchise already.

Rating: 5/10 - Beautiful visuals and a massive budget are all this dull Bond entry has going for it.

Link This: Zero Tolerance (2015) - Theatrical Review

Director: Wych Kaosayananda

Cast: Dustin Nguyen, Scott Adkins, Sahajak Boonthanakit, Gary Daniels

Country: Thailand

Rating: R

Run Time: 90 min

Hey everyone! I had the privilege to review an advanced screener of Wych Kaosayananda's latest action film, Zero Tolerance, for City on Fire. The film wasn't all that great, but it was cool to check it out months ahead of its release. Check out the review here.

The Expendables 2 (2012) - Retrospective Review

Director: Simon West

Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jean Claude Van Damme, Scott Adkins, Chuck Norris

Country: United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 103 min

The Expendables 2 is a fun but albeit flawed sequel to the equally flawed but noticeably more serious The Expendables. Stripped of the previous film's bleak tone and character driven nature, The Expendables is an all out action and cameo fest with little attention to character or common sense. The sequel does exactly what one expects from a sequel to such a franchise: amp up the stakes, deliver bigger set pieces, and introduce more action icons. However, the film's quality takes a hit due to such things. Even though the film's action scenes and stars are bigger and more plentiful, that doesn't necessarily mean that the sequel is a better film. 

With Stallone no longer at the helm of the director's chair, The Expendables 2 is a noticeably lighter affair that aims purely for action and nothing more. If the first film was made mostly for die hard action fans, than the sequel is made exclusively for action fans, as non-action fans and esteemed critics alike will find nothing to enjoy here. If Stallone, Statham, and Schwarzenegger aren't your buddies, than this is not the film for you. Action fans will be pleased to discover that the sequel features a stronger duo of villains and nearly triple the body count in exactly the same run time. 

The boys are back and ready to kick more ass.

The Expendables 2 opens with an insanely long and ridiculous action scene that trumps the finale of first film within minutes. One can immediately sense the difference between this film and its predecessor as characters crack jokes as they gun down nameless henchmen. After the Expendables survive said mission and head home, Barney is confronted by a very pissed Church (Bruce Willis) who is upset over the events of the first film. Church is frustrated that Barney and friends destroyed half of Vilena in the process of eliminating James Munroe. Therefore, Church tells Barney that he must retrieve a computer device from a downed plane in Albania or else he and the entire team are going to jail. Church also appoints an advisor, Maggie Chan (Yu Nan), to the team. After successfully retrieving the computer device, the mission goes from sour to worse when the mysterious Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) murders one of the Expendables and steals the device. Barney's simple retrieval mission quickly turns into a full blown quest for revenge as the Expendables team up with several old and new faces to take down Vilain.

The cracks in the Expendables franchise appear within minutes of sequel's start as the jokes and cameos come quicker than ever before. It's clear that with Stallone no longer directing, the Expendables franchise has more or less turned into a pure action fest, plain and simple. The bleak tone and mournful nature of Stallone's somewhat mature original is completely absent in this picture. Viewers are instead treated to a ridiculous amount of self referential comedy and lame humor that will only get a kick out of the dads in the audience. Here are some lines from The Expendables 2 that make me cringe in my seat:

"Fine, but if I don't get this back, your ass is terminated!" - Crews to Schwarzenegger

"Now that's what I call Chinese takeout!" - Statham to Jet Li parachuting out of plane

"I could really go for some Chinese food." - Lundgren to Nan

"After five hours of excruciating pain, the cobra died." - Norris literally making a Chuck Norris joke

"I now pronounce you, man and knife." - Statham as he throws a knife into a guy

"You've been back enough, I'll be back." - Willis to Schwarzenegger

"Yippe Ki-Yay." - Schwarzenegger to Willis

"Who's next, Rambo?" - Schwarzenegger to Norris

These are truly some of the worst lines of dialog that I have ever heard in a feature film. The biggest problem with cracking jokes like these during action sequences is that it deflates all of the tension out of the film's otherwise violent and gory proceedings. In the original Expendables, Stallone and friends only cracked jokes during down time or when they were away from their missions. This made sense, as trained mercenaries are nothing more than human. In the sequel however, no moment or action scene is sacred. A character can crack a joke or laugh about killing someone at a moment's notice and ruin what was otherwise a fun and awesome action scene. It is for reasons like these that The Expendables 2 is a noticeably weaker film than the original.

The action Gods smile upon us by reuniting both Van Damme and Adkins!

However, The Expendables 2 makes up for its flaws in certain areas that ultimately makes the film as watchable as Stallone's original. The sequel introduces a plethora of new characters and action icons that puts the original film's cast completely to shame. However, the screen time for each character seems more unbalanced this time around than ever before. After all, only so much screen time can be given to the same characters from before, along with the new ones, within a 103 minute film.

Sylvester Stallone completely phones in his performance this time around with a lazy and emotionless turn as the once bleak and human Barney Ross. Stallone barely conveys an honest human emotion throughout the film. He seems fit to maintain the same mildly tense attitude throughout the entire film. It's clear that Stallone's heart was not in the sequel as much as it was in the original.

Besides Mickey Rourke, all of the surviving members of the original film return with worse material to work with than before. One odd element of the sequel is that Jet Li is downgraded from being a significant supporting player to that of a mere cameo. It's a damn shame too, as Li is one of the few members of the franchise who can actually carry an action scene on his own. The Expendables 2 also introduces the first female ass kicker of the franchise, played by Yu Nan. Nan is given very little to do throughout the film and barely leaves an impression. Newcomer Liam Hemsworth, formerly Miley Cyrus' fiance, gives a surprisingly great performance as the teams' newest member. It's a shame that his character is killed off so soon, as Billy the Kid showcases more humanity and likability than any other Expendable in the entire sequel. Therefore, the sequel introduces very few new members to the core Expendables team.

"I now pronounce you, man and knife."

However, the sequel does step up both its cameo and villain game even more than the original film. Chuck Norris (Invasion U.S.A.) of all action stars makes a cameo appearance during the middle and end of the film as a lone mercenary who joins in on the action because...why not? His cameo is pretty ridiculous, but at least it gives Norris one last chance to up his total career kill count if anything else. Both Arnold and Bruce get in on the action this time around too. After merely standing still in the original film and cracking awful jokes, the two get to mow down bad guys this time while also cracking awful jokes. Upgraded from merely cameos, the two sort of become honorary members of the Expendables team. I am particularly embarrassed to admit it, but I kind of love the smart car bit where the two cram into a car and drive around shooting bad guys. It's incredibly silly but also bad ass at the same time. I especially love the shots of Arnie and Bruce leaning out of the car to pick up more guns to fire. However, The Expendables 2 drops the mic when it comes to its villain duo played by none other than Jean-Claude Van Damme (Hard Target) and Scott Adkins (Ninja, El Gringo). 

Van Damme and Adkins had already appeared in action films such as The Shepherd: Border Patrol, The Assassination Games, and Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning together. Adkins is more or less the new Jean-Claude Van Damme too. Therefore, their pairing in The Expendables 2 was a stroke of genius. Van Damme plays a villain literally named 'Vilain." You can't get more silly and on the nose than that. Van Damme steals the show and gives one of the best performances of his career as a psychotic and sadistic criminal who takes pleasure in killing people and admires the symbol of the goat. Adkins plays Van Damme's right hand man and makes for a nice foil to Statham's Lee Christmas. The two have an especially intense moment early on in the film where Statham disrepects Adkins, only to be forced to respect him back right afterwords. Van Damme and Adkins, two of my favorite action stars working today, are the main reason that I find myself returning to The Expendables 2 every now and than, not Stallone and Statham. 

And yet, for all of The Expendables 2 silliness, there is still an underlying story about redemption amongst its revenge plot. Barney sees Billy the Kid as himself, only younger and smarter. Billy admits early on in the film that the Expendables life is not for him, and that he is going to leave the team in order to be with his girlfriend. Barney admires this because he wish he had done the same early on in his life instead of wasting the years away killing people. Therefore, when Vilain kills Billy, Barney feels responsible and saddened because Billy had a chance to live a good life. Barney's quest to avenge Billy's death is more than just simple revenge, but a personal journey about redemption for himself and Billy's lost life.

Willis and Arnie get in on the fun.

From an action stand point, The Expendables 2 is pretty solid. The film is jam packed with more action than even the first film. In fact, the final hour of the film is more or less one action scene after another until the credits roll. Unfortunately, the sequel lacks the small scale and personal nature of the first film. The sequel's massive set pieces lack a considerable amount of direction or purpose and tend to come off as montages of violence at points. The final air port battle, while entertaining and jam packed with as much fan service as possible, is honestly a mess of an action scene. Characters simply pop up out of nowhere and gun down nameless henchmen even though they rarely take cover and leave themselves open to gun fire. What kind of trained mercenary would make such an error?

The sequel also opens with an insane action scene where every character must kill 10 to 100 people each. Statham alone kills more people here than most other actors get too in their entire careers. The film's action tends to be at its strongest when the attention is shifted towards a small scaled fight that takes place during a larger battle. For example, Jet Li's fight against a number of guards in a kitchen during the opening mission is infinitely more satisfying and awesome than the entire mission itself. The same can also be said for Statham's fight against the Sangs inside of a church while the rest of the Expendables gun down the various intruders in a village. Small scaled fights like steal the show every time.

One of my problems with the first Expendables is that the film didn't feature any great one on one fights. Nobody wanted to see Dolph go up against Jet Li or Stallone go up against Steve Austin. These fights are fine, but they in no way take advantage of the previous history or skills attached to said fighters. Dolph is too tall to fight a skilled martial artists like Jet Li and Stallone is the last person who should be taking on a professional wrestler. This is why I think that the three way fight between Jet Li, Statham, and Gary Daniels is the best fight in the original film because all three of those actors are middle aged martial arts centric actors who should be fighting one another. Fortunately, The Expendables 2 gets this aspect right and features two awesome fights that pit four separate icons of action against one another.

The first notable fight that takes place during the finale pits Statham against Adkins. Both Statham and Adkins are young action stars who perform martial arts in many of their films. Therefore, it makes sense for the two to duke it out at the end of the sequel. While it is unfortunate that their fight is exceptionally short, I'll take a short fight between the two any day over no fight. The Expendables 2 also pits two of action cinema's greatest titans, Stallone and Van Damme, against one another in the final fight of the film. Both Stallone and Van Damme are particularly elder actors who have been working in the genre for several decades now. Therefore, the two more or less brawl it out with one another and resort to lots of gut punches and takedowns in a fight that benefits from some excellent build up. This is exactly what the first Expendables film was lacking, a significant and long awaited one on one fight between two of action cinema's greatest titans. Fortunately, The Expendables 2 understands this and delivers.

"Do you wanna fight me like a man or like a sheep?"

Simon West's sequel to Stallone's ode to action packs in more action and cameos than previously thought imaginable. The face offs are better, the body count is higher, and the villains are even more memorable. Even Brian Tyler's excellent score from the first film is back too. Unfortunately, the film falls hard in other areas of the picture, thereby making The Expendables 2 a weaker but still satisfying sequel. The horrendous digital effects are back and even worse this time. Computerized helicopters have never looked so terrible. The sequel also features an added helping of comedy, but at the expense of the film's tension. 

The Expendables 2 aims purely for action and comedy, but nothing more than that. If the sequel had kept its focus on the characters and scaled down the action, than its testosterone infused proceedings might have been more enjoyable and gripping. How many times are viewers expected to join these guys on these adventures if no attention is given to the characters and no filmmaker takes the material seriously? Let that be a warning to all future filmmakers of this franchise. Otherwise, The Expendables 2 is a flawed but highly enjoyable sequel that all action fans have probably already seen two or three times already.

Rating: 6/10 - A noticeably weaker albeit more fun and action packed sequel to the most testosterone infused franchise around.

Franchise:

The Expendables (dir. Sylvester Stallone, 2010)

The Expendables 2 (dir. Simon West, 2012)

The Expendables 3 (dir. Patrick Hughes, 2014)

Terminator Genisys (2015) - Theatrical Review

Director: Alan Taylor

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jai Courtney, Emilia Clarke, Jason Clarke, Matt Smith

Country: United States

Rating: PG-13

Run Time: 126 Minutes

When I recently reviewed Terminator 3, I declared it to be the worst Terminator film to date. I now might have to redact that statement though because I just saw Terminator Genisys and it sucked the big one. Terminator Genisys is one of the most overly complicated and boring science fiction films that I have seen to date. This film leaves so many questions and disregards so many franchise consistencies that it boggled my mind at points. I cannot believe that James Cameron of all people gave this film his approval and declared it "the true third film in the series." I wonder how much money Paramount paid him in order to give the film his blessing, because it most certainly does not get mine.

Terminator Genisys comes from Alan Taylor, the director of the bland Thor: The Dark World, and screenwriters Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier, responsible for such great films as Pathfinder and Dracula 2000. I hope you sense my sarcasm on that last one, because Terminator Genisys was essentially placed into the hands of a bunch of artists who craft schlock, not legitimate and thematic science fiction cinema. These writers' and director's pedigree shows, as Terminator Genisys is nothing but computer generated garbage and studio notes from start to finish. My heart goes out to all of the die hard Terminator fans like myself who saw this film out of loyalty to the franchise and left with a hole in their chest thanks to Alan Taylor's punch of death.

Back again...to disappoint.

I guess I should summarize the plot before I go any further, or at least try my best to summarize the plot, because what plot is there? Terminator Genisys completely disregards the ending of T2 and the entirety of both T3 and T4. The film picks up in a post apocalyptic future where SkyNet took over the world in 1997. However, John Connor has finally led the resistance to victory and crushed SkyNet for good. Unfortunately, SkyNet sends a Terminator through a time machine and yada yada yada you know this. Genisys doesn't start changing things up until Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) is sent back in time to 1984. Upon his arrival, he discovers that the time line has been completely altered and that Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) already has a guardian, an aged T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who was sent to protect her in 1973. After dealing with both the evil T-800 and T-1000 (Byung Hun Lee), Kyle and friends realize that they must go forward in time to 2017 in order to stop a new threat, Genisys (which is essentially SkyNet but under a different name).

One of the biggest problems that I have with Genisys is that the film cannot decide whether or not it wants to be a reboot or a sequel to the Cameron films. Genisys is more of a greatest hits collection of Terminator moments than it is anything else. The first third of the film is anything but new, as we see characters and events from T1 and T2 pop up. Post apocalyptic future? Check. Time machine? Check. The T-800 going back in time to 1984? Check. The T-1000 getting shot and reforming into liquid metal? Check. "Come with me if you want to live!"? Check. It's all here.

It honestly takes a good hour before Genisys becomes a true reboot and ditches the previous Terminator films altogether. However, if I had to specify what Genisys is, I would call it a reboot-quel, a film that sort of acts as a sequel to other films but reboots the series at the same time with new actors and a new time line. Genisys' own identity as a film is about as complicated as its own plot. You could also call Genisys a Terminator fan film, as it literally combines as many elements from the Terminator franchise as possible while pretending to be fresh and new. It just seems like a real film because it has a $150 million budget and stars Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

Alright! Practical T-800's are b...oh no.

I also have a major issue with the film's casting. Even though every single character has been recast, the T-800 is still played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. What gives? Why does Arnold get to return but everyone else has to be recast. This qualm plays into my other problem regarding the film's status as a reboot and a sequel. If this film were a true reboot, than every single actor would have been recast, including Arnold. However, Arnold's inclusion strengthens the film's status as a sequel that much more.

Even though every actor assigned to each classic role does fine work, they unfortunately have to work with a painfully bad screenplay. Every character interaction is utterly forced and in no way natural or organic. The "romance" between Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese is especially bad. Fortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger, J.K. Simmons, and Byung Hun Lee shine the best out of anybody. Both Arnold and Byung Hun Lee (A Bittersweet Life, G.I. Joe: Retaliation) play emotionless characters, so their roles are mostly physical and silent. Plus, both actors are bad ass action stars, so it's nice to have two bad asses amongst an otherwise tame film. J.K. Simmons on the other hand plays one of the few new characters, Detective O'Brien, who happened to be saved by Kyle and Sarah back in 1984. His character, a kind and helpful detective, is the only shining light in the entire film.

Genisys is a tad more thematic than Terminator 3 at least, I can give it that. However, the film's attempt at being relevant and thematic is simply chuckle worthy. Genisys is the second film this year, the other being Kingsman: The Secret Service, to utilize society's anticipation for a new app or piece of technology as the villain's tool for taking over the world. The film plays off this Genisys operating system, one that connects our phones with all of the rest of our technology, as if it were a brand new thing in 2017. However, many of our devices in 2015 are already connected with one another. Therefore, Genisys is in no way revolutionary or remotely new, as it mostly exists within our real world society today. Whereas Kingsman handled its technological aspect as satire, Terminator Genisys takes its material deadly seriously and thinks it's on the cusp of warning us of a new technology.

Alright! Robert Patrick is b...aww, nope. It's not him.

Genisys also has the dullest action set pieces of any Terminator film to date. This is a shame because both T1 and T2 revolutionized action filmmaking for both the 80s and the 90s upon their release. And while T3 and T4 didn't have all around fantastic action sequences, both films contain a few choice set pieces that stand out and dazzle me with their jaw dropping imagery and impressive choreography. Genisys on the other hand is dull from start to finish thanks to an over abundance of computer generated imagery and a dull PG-13 rating. I praised the previous Terminator film, Salvation, for its reliance upon practical vehicles and sets for its action set pieces because it grounded the film in realism. Unfortunately, Genisys throws all of that grittiness and realism out of the window for animated schlock that lacks all tension and suspense. Although packed to the brim with action, there is not a single set piece that excited me in any way, shape, or form. Remember when the Terminator franchise was orchestrated around bad ass gun fire and practical stunts? Yeah, that's all gone now.

If you want to skip major spoilers, than jump to my final rating because I am going to delve deep into many of the film's problems concerning its twists. Alright, here we go.

First off, why does the T-5000 attack John in front of Kyle just before he goes back in time? Why not wait for Kyle to leave, and than attack John, thereby tricking Kyle into thinking that everything is fine. Also, who the hell sent the T-800 back in time to protect Sarah? This is arguably the biggest question left by the film and it's all the more frustrating because the screenwriters are obviously planning to answer it in a future film. But come on, this question is so huge that it needed to be answered in this film! Next, why does the T-1000 arrive in the same time line as the T-800, and in a police uniform for goodness sakes?! Therefore, who sent him back? Also, why does the T-800 not grasp the concept of hugs yet? He learned to understand the value of human life in two days in Terminator 2! And yet he can't grasp human affection after being with Sarah for like 10 years.

However, the biggest flaw of all that made my jaw drop during my screening concerned the T-800's decision to terminate itself. The T-800 gets put into a positiong during the big finale where he can detonate the building that will kill SkyNet. However, the T-3000 knows the T-800 won't blow the building because that would mean he would have to kill Sarah Connor. While it is true that a Terminator cannot kill that who it has sworn to protect, the bigger issue at hand concerns the T-800 itself. How the hell do the screenwriters not remember that a Terminator cannot terminate itself?! They play this moment off as if the T-800 would have blown the building and killed himself if Sarah were not involved. It shocks me that James Cameron okay'd this film because that element of the franchise was most apparent during the finale of Terminator 2 in which the T-800 asks for Sarah to kill him. I guess the biggest question of all is how Paramount okay'd this crap?

Alright! It's Terminator! I love this...oh, it's only Terminator Genisys.

When your film introduces that a time machine can be created by anyone in any timeline, the concept of time travel loses its uniqueness. I nearly laughed out loud by the time I saw the third time machine in this film. Terminator Genisys takes what started as one of the most unique franchises about time travel and ruins everything that made the series good. 

One of the reasons that I enjoyed Salvation so much is because it was something new in a franchise built around doing the same old thing. The film accepted T3's flaws and decided to move forward from there with a better product that properly paid homage to Cameron's originals. Unfortunately, Paramount decided to take the series several steps backwards and travel back in time yet again and tell another story about a good Terminator versus a bad Terminator. Paramount essentially threw all of McG's hard work away and decided to do the same old thing once again. I guess that is what pains me the most about Genisys. It is nothing more than an average cookie cutter blockbuster film primed for the most generic audience as possible. However, the film adds injury to insult with its overtly confusing screenplay. I do not look forward to the two eventual sequels and hope that this new trilogy fails to take fruition. This film should have been retitled Terminator Revelations, as it is essentially the end of a once great franchise, not the start of something new (i.e. Genesis, the start of the bible).

Rating: 3/10 - An overly complicated and utterly dull reboot of a franchise that deserves far better at this point.

Franchise:

The Terminator (dir. James Cameron, 1984)

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (dir. James Cameron, 1991)

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (dir. Jonathan Mostow, 2003)

Terminator: Salvation (dir. McG, 2009)

Terminator: Genisys (dir. Alan Taylor, 2015)

Brothers, Guns, and Doves - Vengeance (2010)

Director: Johnnie To

Cast: Johnny Hallyday, Anthony Wong, Simon Yam, Lam Suet, Lam Ka-Tung

Country: Hong Kong / France

Rating: R

Run Time: 109 minutes

Those who know me in person or who have read my blog know that I consider John Woo to be the greatest action director of all time. Nobody shoots action or portrays the intense bond between men the way that man does. Unfortunately, Woo hasn't made a grounded Hong Kong action picture in over 20 years. It wasn't until 2010 that I discovered Johnnie To, Woo's replacement as the new great director of grounded heroic bloodshed films. To, who has been working nearly as long as Woo, is an immensely underrated filmmaker who has made comedies, crime dramas, and Woo-esque shoot em ups. He is essentially a more mature and meditative John Woo for the modern age who opts for silence and tension over bombastic emotion.

I discovered Johnnie To in 2010 when I stumbled upon Vengeance, an action film whose trailer caught my eye thanks to its slow motion editing. I checked out the film based solely on its trailer even though I had no clue who Johnnie To was at the time. You can bet that To shot way up on my radar after I finished Vengeance. I am dead serious when I say that Vengeance is not only one of the most underrated contemporary action films of the last few years, but quite possibly one of the greatest action films of all time. I know that is a helluva claim, but I do not say it lightly. Vengeance will kick your ass with its grandiose gun fights, draw you in with its honorable characters, and surprise you with how multi-layered its basic narrative is. Yes, Vengeance might just be the most generic title of all time. But underneath that generic title is one of the least generic Hong Kong films this side of the decade.

Guys, shots like this exemplify why this movie is a masterwork.

I cannot stress this enough when I say that I am an audience of one on my love for this film. Most critics and To fans consider Election to be To's masterpiece. Quentin Tarantino infamously stated that Election was the best film of the year it was released. While I admit that Election is a good film, Vengeance is leaps and bounds above it and every To film I have seen before (for the record: The Mission, Fulltime Killer, Exiled, Election, and Drug War).

Vengeance's plot is as straightforward and simple as they come. When Francis Costello (Johnny Hallyday) learns that his daughter's family was murdered by hit men, he vows to enact vengeance on the men. However, Costello owns no weapons, is French, and knows nothing about Macau, Hong Kong, the place where his daughter lived. He is a fish out of water and a man without the required experience to catch said hit men. Upon returning to his hotel, Costello witnesses three hit men murder a couple within their hotel room. Costello and the three men stare one another down and say nothing, going on with their lives as if they had not seen one another. The next day, Costello tracks down the hit men and makes them an offer they can't refuse. If Costello pays the three hit men exuberant amounts of money and gives them ownership of all of his homes and restaurants, they will help him kill his daughter's murderers.

That plot right there is simple enough to base an action film around. However, what makes Vengeance so special is how To takes such a straight forward plot and treats the material in a mature and honorable matter. To infuses the film with typical heroic bloodshed themes of brotherhood, honor, and self sacrifice. He than goes so far as to tie up the whole film in a Memento-styled bow when he reveals that Costello's memory is failing him because he was shot in the head long ago. Therefore, Costello has to race against time in order to enact vengeance before he loses his memory completely.

Brothers until the end.

To be completely honest, I don't even find Costello, the lead protagonist of the picture, to be the most interesting character in the film. The true stars of the film are in fact the three hit men whom Costello hires to help him: Kwai (Anthony Wong), Fay Lok (Lam Suet), and Chu (Lam Ka-Tung), all played by To regulars. I love these three characters because they live by a code of honor in which they honor their agreement with whomever has most recently employed them. When the three men realize that George Fung (Simon Yam), the triad boss responsible for the murder of Costello's family, is also their boss, they find themselves in quite the pickle. Talk about bad luck! Do they stand by their triad boss who they have worked for so long or stand by Costello, a foreigner who has paid them all of the money they will ever need?

When the three hit men choose to stand by Costello, it says a lot about their character. This sub-plot concerning the fates and morality of Kwai and his fellow hit men is what makes Vengeance such a masterpiece for me. How often do you find an action film in which a group of hit men go against their former boss simply because they made a prior agreement with someone else? This one giant coincidence, along with Costello's Memento-esque memory and To's treatment of the material as if it were Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, elevates Vengeance from generic genre picture to a true masterwork of cinema.

Vengeance is yet another heroic bloodshed picture to pay homage to the French gangster films of the late 60s and early 70s. The genre itself is essentially a more bombastic and ridiculous rendition of said French films. To and Woo are infamously huge fans of Jean Pierre Melville, the director responsible for such gangster classics as Le Samourai and Le Cercle Rouge. Therefore, it is no surprise to see Vengeance, an obvious heroic bloodshed picture, incorporate the silent characters and themes of honor found within Melville's cinema. The character of Francis Costello was to be originally played by Alain Delon, the star of Le Samourai and Le Cercle Rouge. However, when Delon did not work out, Hallyday, also a French entertainer, stepped in to occupy the role. By the way, if Delon had been able to be in the movie, that would have blown my freakin' mind. Alain Delon in a contemporary action film? Holy crap.

It's clear that To wanted to emulate the routine silence and emotionless performances of Delon within the Costello character. Therefore, Hallyday essentially acts as Delon as much as possible. Hallyday also heavily emulates early 70s Charles Bronson (Death Wish, The Mechanic), thanks to his stone faced performance and craggly worn face. The influence of Melville's gangster films resides not just within Hong Kong cinema, but within the entire action genre as well. From Woo's The Killer, to Jim Jarmusch's Ghost Dog, to Nicholas Winding Refn's Drive, to even last year's John Wick, Melville's DNA is in more action films than you could count.

I cannot praise this film's cinematography and lighting enough!

Woo will always be the head honcho action director in my eyes, there's just no way around that. However, To is a mighty fine replacement for Woo until the man leaves Chinese history behind and returns to the streets of contemporary Hong Kong. What makes To different from Woo though is that he blends balletic violence with the unrelenting tension of a Sergio Leone Euro-Western. This is what makes To such a unique filmmaker. He treats his characters with the maturity of a Clint Eastwood picture, edits his action like a John Woo picture, and builds up to said action like a Sergio Leone picture. He's a genre fanatic's dream come true!

To is an expert at directing his actors to visually convey information about their characters, whether it be through standing still, staring down an enemy, or firing a gun without moving. Wong, Hallyday, Suet, and the numerous other actors who populate the film give incredible visual performances that tell you everything about their characters and reveal To's masterful control of the material. To's films are the definition of all show and no tell.

My favorite scene in the entire film is the expected confrontation between Costello's hit men and the actual hit men who murdered Costello's family. To make this explanation easier, let's call Costello's hit men his "friends." After all, there is a great moment later in the film where Costello, having lost his memory, asks the men who they are, to which Anthony Wong replies, "We are you friends." When Costello and his friends walk up to the hit men in a park at nighttime, they stand down when they see that the hit men have arrived at the park for a picnic with their families. Therefore, Costello and friends honor the hit men's family obligation and walk over to a picnic table and watch them enjoy their supposed final meal.

A junkyard shootout to the death.

After the hit men bid farewell to their families, they turn around and face Costello and his friends. What follows is one of the most beautiful and unique shootouts to grace the screen. As the men run after one another and fire their guns in a dark forest, the clouds in the sky repeatedly block out the moon's light. Therefore, the men have to take breaks in between shooting because they cannot see in the dark. It's an extraordinary action scene made all the better by the incredible build up that precedes it.

The cinematography and lighting in the moonlight shootout, as well as every other scene in the film, is damn impressive. To's steady camera work results in some of the most gorgeous balletic gun fights in cinematic history. The ensuing gun fight in Costello and friends' hide out is a fantastic representation of the hit men's tactics, specifically their unspoken bond of team work. As Costello and Kwai make their way down a stair well, Fay Lok and Chu hang on the outside of the stairwell and fire away at Fung's oncoming henchmen from above and below. That way, no henchman can ever get the jump on them, whether it be from above or below their location. I adore this representation of team work, as it turns a routine shootout into a strong demonstration of the friendship shared amongst the four men.

I am also gagga about the shootout in which Kwai stands up against main villain George Fung. When Kwai and friends arrive at a junkyard looking for Fung, they see all of Fung's henchmen using trash compactor cubes as cover as they make their way towards Kwai. Therefore, Kwai and friends each grab a cube of their own and push their way towards the men, essentially charging in on them with trash compactor cubes as their shields. Unfortunately, things don't work out too well for Kwai, as they are hopelessly outnumbered. However, this sad scene is a fantastic representation of the heroic bloodshed genre in general, as the three men sacrifice their lives and well being for the sake of one sick man who deserves his revenge. This self sacrificial nature is a key component of the heroic bloodshed genre, and one of my favorite aspects of said genre. Also, Costello's restaurant chain is named "brothers" for goodness sakes. How much more heroic bloodshed can you get Johnnie To!?

The mis-en-scene in To's cinema is truly breathtaking. I also have to applaud To's always bad ass misty blood effects. Just when you thought you had seen every type of bloody squib in cinema, To comes along and introduces misty blood to the mix. And of course, how can one not adore this film's soundtrack? The score in Vengeance perfectly accentuates every scene and captures the mood every time it plays over the film's images.

"This jacket belongs to you." *BAM*

I have convinced myself even further how masterful Vengeance is just while writing this review. I honestly believe that Vengeance is truly one of the greatest action films of all time, it is that good! To takes a generic title and plot about vengeance and turns it into an extremely mature and multi-layered genre picture. From the action scenes, to the performances, to the overwhelming powerful themes of friendship and honor, Vengeance is a tour-de-force of action craftsmanship. 

I also highly recommend Johnnie To's 2007 feature Exiled. It makes for a great complement to Vengeance because it tackles similar themes, features many of the same cast members in essentially the same roles (Wong as a bad ass assassin, Suet as a chubby humorous assassin, and Yam as a ridiculously and overly sexual villain), and ups the action sequences found here. Whether you watch just Exiled, just Vengeance, or both, I hope that you come to realize how incredible a filmmaker Johnnie To is and how vastly underrated his cinema is too.

Rating: 10/10 - Need I say more?

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - Theatrical Review

Director: George Miller

Cast: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Hugh Keays-Bryne, Nicholas Hoult, Rosey Huntington-Whiteley

Country: Australia / United States

Rating: R

Run Time: 120 minutes

Before I start this review, let me say that I had planned on reviewing the two Mad Max sequels (Mad Max 2 [a.k.a The Road Warrior] and Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome) before I wrote about Fury Road. However, I don't think I could live with myself if I waited any longer to share my opinions on George Miller's latest masterpiece. Therefore, just know that I love the Mad Max sequels with all of my heart, flaws and all. I'll do lengthy reviews for the sequels some day, but you can check out my review for Miller's 70s classic here. (Note: I wrongly proclaimed Mad Max a post-apocalyptic film in my review even though it is set before said apocalypse. However, it might as well be one since it foretells a future on the brink of destruction and demonstrates many of the elements of a post-apocalyptic film. It's more of a pre-apocalyptic film if anything.)

After a 30 year hiatus, George Miller's Mad Max is back! It fills me with glee to see a reboot to one of my very favorite action franchises of all time be written and directed by the man who wrote and directed all previous Mad Max films. After years of development, reshoots, and delays, Mad Max: Fury Road has finally made it to theaters. And all I can say is, wow. Mad Max: Fury Road is destined to become an action classic. It is an action film so brave, so confident, so fully realized, and so bat s*** insane, that other action films wish they could match the sheer level of filmmaking on display in its two hour run time.

#bloodbagforlife

In today's day and age of overcomplicated and overcrowded summer blockbusters, Mad Max: Fury Road barrels into theaters with a simplistic and straightforward plot. Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) is a widowed father and former police officer who now wanders the post-apocalyptic wasteland alone. He is immediately captured by the War Boys, a cult-like group of men who worship Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Bryne), their leader and water supplier. On the day that Max is captured and turned into a blood bag, Joe sends off Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) to gather gasoline for their citadel and commune. However, Furiosa has secretly snuck Joe's "wives" and breeders out of the citadel in order to offer them a life of freedom. As Joe and his many worshippers take off after Furiosa to reclaim their breeders, Max is dragged along for the ride atop a car driven by Nux (Nicholas Hoult), a War Boy desperate to enter the gates of Valhalla. What follows is two hours of straight post-apocalyptic mayhem the likes that has never been seen before.

Fury Road is one of the most unique reboots to date. As I stated before, the film is written and directed by George Miller, the auteur and creator of the Max Rockatansky character. Therefore, it is interesting to see the man who started it all reboot his own franchise with a new actor in the lead role. Fury Road is not only a great reboot, but it also operates on a level of insanity never before seen in any Mad Max film before it. Miller fleshes out his vision of the post-apocalyptic future more than ever before thanks to an expansive budget and numerous years of development. If you thought that the world glimpsed within Beyond Thunderdome was expansive in comparison to the first two Mad Max films, than wait until you see this. Fury Road is jam packed with more vehicles, characters, varying factions, and weapons than you ever could have imagined within a Mad Max film. Fury Road is essentially a classic Mad Max film but on steroids. $150 million steroids, that is.

Miller fully immerses the viewer into the film's universe and makes little time for exposition. Instead of having a whole film to explain Max's origin as he did with Mad Max in 1979, Miller introduces us to Max at his so called "maddest" and uses flash backs and an opening narration by Max to explain how he became the way that he is. While I personally did not need any of this information, as Mad Max fans know this stuff by heart, I understand that this is a reboot and newcomers need this information in order to understand the character. While contemporary reboots like RoboCop (2014) and The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) waste entire films explaining the origins of their time honored characters, Fury Road takes a whopping minute to get Max's origin out of the way and than moves on. Studios should take a clue from Miller's treatment of Fury Road and skip origin films entirely unless the character is being introduced to an audience for the very first time. If the character is a time honored property, like Max Rockatansky, than audiences don't need to see their origin play out over an entire film again. Give it to us like Fury Road, and we'll love you for it forever studios.

Theron shines as Furiosa, the true protagonist of the film.

Fury Road is a triumph of visual filmmaking, as it rarely relies upon dialog to tell its story. Characters speak or yell only when necessary or to convey characteristics about themselves. There is not a word or a frame wasted in this picture, Fury Road is that tight and filmic. Fury Road even visually feels like a classic Mad Max film thanks to Miller's trademark sped up footage. The film also contains many visual references to the classic Mad Max films (i.e. one of Joe's wives plays with a music box, Max's flashbacks reveal a character's bug eyed death, the War Rig crashes head first into a vehicle and causes its parts to explode over the front of it, and Max obtains his iconic sawed-off shotgun) that serve as fun callbacks for fans of the series like myself. I also love how Max's sawed off shotgun fizzles out when fired. It's a great callback to the scene in The Road Warrior when Max drives the tanker towards Papagallio's camp and fires his sawed off only for it to misfire on him.

If I had to express a gripe about the film, it would be that I am not a huge fan of Hardy's portrayal of the titular character. He sounds too similar to Bane from The Dark Knight Rises and grunts far more than Mel ever did. Hardy also doesn't convey the warmness of Mel's Max. That personal opinion aside, it is clear that Miller wanted to take the Max character in a different direction. Max is "madder" and more selfish than ever before, as seen evident in several scenes where he thinks about his well being before others. Fortunately, and as evident in all previous Mad Max films, Max's good natured side takes over and causes him to join Furiosa and the wives on their quest to safety. Max is also a darker and more tortured character than ever before. He repeatedly sees visions of his deceased daughter and regrets not saving her. These torturous visions control Max and shape him to be the person that he is more than anything else.

The other unique thing about Max this time around is that he isn't even the protagonist. Charlize Theron's Furiosa is the star of the film, as Fury Road is entirely her story. Max is simply along for the ride in a film about Furiosa's plight to save a group of women who want to be free from Immortan Joe's clutches. Furiosa is a fantastic character who chooses to break from her leader's wishes in order to save a group of girls from a life of imprisonment. Much of her past is left mysterious too, as we never come to learn what she was before she was an Imperator or how she lost her left arm.

An immortan villain for the modern age.

Much praise should also be heaped upon amazing supporting turns by Mad Max-alumni Hugh Keays Bryne as big baddie Immortan Joe and Nicholas Hoult's character Nux, a loveable and conflicted War Boy. It's fascinating to see Bryne, the villain of the very first Mad Max film, return as a new villain in the reboot. It's not odd unheard of within the franchise though, as Bruce Spence played two different characters in both The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. Immortan Joe is truly one of the most despicable villains in recent memory. I can't remember the last time that I watched an action film and actively anticipated the moment when the lead villain died. You know a villain is great when you simply hate their guts. Nicholas Hoult is especially great as a conflicted War Boy who learns to think for himself and join Max and Furiosa. Nux heavily reminded me of the Pig Killer, the loveable and equally scummy supporting character from Beyond Thunderdome who eventually joins Max. I also think that the romance between Nux and one of Joe's wives makes for one of the cutest and most believable romances in a blockbuster lately.

Fury Road finds Miller exploring familiar ground within the Mad Max franchise. We are once again introduced to a group of crazed people who worship and follow a cult-like leader. Immortan Joe and his War Boys are very similar to Toecutter and his gang from Mad Max, Lord Humungus and his Gay Boys from The Road Warrior, and Aunty Entity and the citizens of Bartertown from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Miller is clearly interested in exploring how powerful leaders rule others through power and sometimes religion. The film also explores themes of redemption and feminism, something that the film has received much praise for from feminists. Whether you want to call it a feminist film or not, Fury Road shows great progressive stride in depicting females as equal ass kickers who save the male hero as much as he saves them.

Miller has truly out done himself with the action sequences this time around. Fury Road is a wonderful throw back to the old days when actual cars crashed into one another and filmmakers relied upon practical effects as much as possible. It'll be tough looking back on The Road Warrior now, as that film's action sequences may seem dated or tame in comparison to the insanity on display here. Every single one of Fury Road's action sequences are so good that they all equal The Road Warrior's infamous final tanker chase. It's clear that Miller based Fury Road off of The Road Warrior more than any other Mad Max film, as the film depicts the chase between Joe and Furiosa's War Rig. You could easily replace Joe and his War Boys with Lord Humungus and his Gay Boys and replace the War Rig with Max and the tanker and you'd have The Road Warrior more or less. However, what differentiates Fury Road from all previous Mad Max films is that its central conflict is constantly in motion. The entire film is based around one long chase between Furiosa and Joe. Therefore, the action rarely lets up and forces the viewer onto the edge of their seat for nearly the entire running time.

Cirque de Max

One could write about Mad Max: Fury Road for a long damn time. I didn't even touch upon the film's incredible art direction, exhilarating score by Junkie XL, and the unforgettable supporting characters like The Bullet Farmer or the crazy guitar guy who spews fire out of his guitar. However, I think that Fury Road is an action film that will be revisited until the end of time. It is an action film so insane, so emotional, and so jaw dropping, that it begs repeat viewings. I immediately wanted to watch it again as soon the credits began to roll. To be honest, I don't think any action film has ever affected me in that way before.

I'm sure I should probably hold out for multiple viewings and further analysis, but Fury Road is easily one of the best action films to grace the screen in the last 15 years. Rarely do we see such vehicular mayhem on a scale as grand and epic as this. Most film buffs would agree that Mad Max was a game changer in 1979 for post-apocalyptic cinema and The Road Warrior was a game changer in 1981 for action cinema in general as well as how sequels stack up to their predecessors. If those were Miller's first two game changers, than I would argue that Fury Road is his third. This film will be viewed as a game changer in how it rebooted a 30 year old franchise and brought back practical action filmmaking to the modern blockbuster. George Miller essentially drove a War Rig straight through the summer competition and put blockbusters like Furious 7 and Avengers: Age of Ultron to shame. I can almost guarantee that Fury Road will top my list as the greatest action film of 2015.

Rating: 10/10 - An overwhelming tense, beautiful, and emotional action masterpiece that revives Mad Max for the modern age and proves that George Miller is truly one of the greatest visual filmmakers of our time.

Franchise:
Mad Max (dir. George Miller, 1979)
Mad Max 2 [The Road Warrior] (dir. George Miller, 1981)
Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (dir. George Miller and George Ogilvie, 1985)
Mad Max: Fury Road (dir. George Miller, 2015)