AMC’s Fear the Walking Dead Season 2, Episode 13: “Date of Death”
Directed by Christoph Schrewe
Written by Brian Buckner
* For a review of the previous episode, “Pillar of Salt” – click here
* For a review of the next episode, “Wrath” – click here
Swarms of bodies are at the gates of the hotel. But not walkers: people. They’re refugees trying to find safe haven. Madison (Kim Dickens), Alicia (Alycia Debnam-Carey), Elena (Karen Bethzabe), they all stand there not knowing how to turn people away, yet having to do just that.
Then in the crowd Madison sees a face – it’s Travis (Cliff Curtis). He’s finally come back to her.
We switch back to some time before with Chris (Lorenzo James Henrie) standing over the dead man he shot. This is the moment which ultimately devastates his father. For the time being, Travis sticks around to try helping James (Israel Broussard) got shot in the process, doing a bit of stitching to the best of his ability. The humanity of Travis is still there; he digs a grave for the man who owned the farm, even makes a cross to go on top: “I don‘t even know your name,” he laments over the closed up grave afterwards. Later that night everyone sits by the fire and eats chicken, enjoying the farm’s commodities, except Travis. He has no time for the way his son’s acting after having murdered a man in cold blood. I genuinely don’t like Chris. He is a “savage” just like his father says.
Cut to Travis at the gates of the hotel. Alicia asks him outright where Chris is, and the look on his face certainly does nothing to assuage any fears she might have in her heart. But again, I can’t stand Chris. He deserves whatever he gets.
Madison and Travis talk about Nick (Frank Dillane) a little. Inevitably, Chris comes up. Travis tells her “I had no choice.” And so we’re back to the farm again. The chicken is gone, then the crew are ready to move out after a week; heading to San Diego. Feeling it isn’t the right choice, Travis does his own thing around the farm a while. He searches the house to try and find the owner’s name. After finding a wallet, he’s able to carve out the name in his cross: Elias Suarez. Soon they all board the truck and leave. Not long and they have to stop because James isn’t healed enough to travel. And you know what that means – Travis is at odds with the group again, as they’re ready to leave James behind to die.
Guns are drawn and shit gets serious. Travis waits it out with James to try protecting him from the group. Chris ends up coming in and tricking his father, they hold him down and then James is murdered in mid sentence. “Your way doesn’t work,” Chris tells his father before leaving with the other two men: “I‘m better off without you.” He believes that who he’s becoming is right. He has actually become a sociopath. Much as I hate him, seeing Travis have to watch him drive off is heartbreaking.
At the hotel, Travis at least feels lucky to be at the hotel with Madison. He still feels guilt for what’s happened to his son. “I left him,” he tells Madison. She tries to reassure him things will be okay, but sadly too much has happened and right now Travis is profoundly wounded. His morality is all mixed up for having lost his boy.
Meanwhile, there’s all the refugees. They were let in because the people at the hotel haven’t become hardened, they still want to help others as much as they can. Alicia is checking people out in a makeshift medical tent, although her mother comes to get her – Madison reveals the truth about her father’s death not being an accident, and in fact a suicide. His note simply stated: I LOVE YOU ALL BUT ENOUGH’S ENOUGH. This, of course, rocks Alicia. The honest openness of Madison is enough to keep mother and daughter from any hurt feelings, even if it’s tough to digest. Alicia is strong, though, and together these women can get through anything. At the same time I can see there’ll likely be fallout from this decision of Madison’s because Alicia still feels upset deep down. And who wouldn’t be?
They’ve got worse things to worry about right now. Because at the gates, up turn the group Travis left behind. You know he can’t be in the same place as them. Will Chris pull Travis back in and will they be let past the gates? Or will someone let them through unknowingly? Is Chris even with them??
Can’t wait for next episode – “Wrath” – and I’m hoping for a big, angry confrontation! This was a nice episode. I’ve seen reviews already saying it was boring, nothing happened, same old stuff. This is the episode I’ve waited for, to see a rift open up between father and son. Again, that’s also paralleled in the troubles Madison has with her own kids, albeit less intense than Travis and Chris.
Either way, pumped for the next chapter in Season 2.
Day of the Dead. 1985. Directed & Written by George A. Romero. Starring Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joseph Pilato, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony Dileo Jr., Richard Liberty, Sherman Howard, Gary Howard Klar, Ralph Marrero, John Amplas, Phillip G. Kellams, Taso N. Stavrakis, and Greg Nicotero. United Film Distribution Company (UFDC)/A Laurel Production/Dead Films Inc./Laurel-Day Inc. Rated R. 96 minutes. Action/Horror/Thriller
★★★★★
For me personally, though I love each of them and think they’re masterpieces of horror, George A. Romero’s Day of the Dead is my favourite of his first three major zombie films. The post-apocalyptic feel here is even stronger than in the previous Dawn of the Dead and I can’t get enough of it.
Romero dives into more sociopolitical issues again here, as he did with the other two Dead movies. This screenplay deals with the head-butting elements of science and military in a world ravaged by the zombie virus. Most of all, though, this movie really gets down to the nitty gritty, raw side of humanity – what we, as a species, would devolve into, regressing back to a primitive state once the zombie apocalypse begins. Through the military vs. scientist dilemma throughout Day of the Dead, this microcosm of the post-virus landscape in a bunker under the ground, we’re able to see how far humans will go, or better yet how far they can fall. Even further than that, as the good Dr. Logan says “they are us“: Romero tries to introduce a clear example of how zombies are still human, merely men and women reduced to a primitive, less active and intelligent state. So what interests me most throughout this fascinating zombie film is how the line between man/womankind and our primitive animalistic self seems to only be a thin one, a light veneer barely separating the two states.
Romero knows us, better than we’d like to admit. When zombies have overrun the world, a dozen people – government scientists and military – live in a bunker below the earth. The scientists, led by Dr. Logan (Richard Liberty) and Dr. Sarah Bowman (Lori Cardille), attempt to try and figure out how to battle the zombie virus itself. Although, Logan has some different and perhaps unorthodox ideas about the way to experiment in such things. The soldiers, now under command of Captain Henry Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) – a hotheaded and equally stubborn, violent man – do not approve of what the doctors are doing.
After the isolation of being underground starts to emotionally and mentally unhinge Private Miguel Salazar (Anthony Dileo Jr), the outside world of the living dead manages to break through, coming down below to meet the still-living.
And then, on that day, hell breaks loose. The opening scene, to me, is one of the things I’ve always loved and found memorable about Day of the Dead. Not sure why, I suppose because there’s a creepy dream-like quality about it which sets the tone: this is going to be a nightmare. And it is, in the absolute correct sense of the word, in the right way a horror film ought to be a nightmarish experience.
Truly, this film is a haunting zombie horror. In my opinion the special makeup effects are best here. Savini gives us amazing gore to soak up. Greatest of all comes quickly, after we’re introduced to the man lovingly referred to as Dr. Frankenstein by the other scientists and the military men, Dr. Logan: a zombie on one of the operating tables leans over, ripping a strap from its arm, and reaching out its guts and innards fall out of the stomach’s cavity onto the floor, slopping in its own mess. Nasty bit! Even better, the dream imagery comes back – like the beginning scene – except much more brutal, and it emulates the zombie’s guts falling out: as Sarah lies in bed, she imagines seeing Miguel similarly lean over with his insides evacuating, then comes back to reality fast. These alone are worth the price of admission regarding special makeup effects. Savini really pulls out his big guns in this movie, taking away the comic book garishness(/awesomeness) from his Dawn of the Dead zombie work, replacing those qualities with equal excellence on top of dirty, disturbing and realistic blood. Not knocking his previous work for Romero, on the contrary – I love it (check here if you don’t believe me). There’s simply a better, more terrifying aspect to the special makeup effects here; while the cartoon-like essence in Dawn of the Dead came a subtle creepiness, here it’s an outright mortifying feeling Savini gives us. Thank you, Tom!
BEST DECAPITATION IN ANY FILM – EVER. My vote goes for a scene around the 1 hour 27 minute mark. A soldier is surprised from behind by a group of the living dead when they pin him down, each grabbing bits and pieces of his flesh, then tear his head off. My favourite part is his scream – as they start to pull the head off, neck separating from shoulders and sternum, his voice gets higher and higher until the vocal cords literally snap off, blood spurting, and the entire head is free. Amazing, amazing special effects here. Such beautiful practical work in the horror genre, really a crowning achievement as far as I’m concerned. And not just that: it’s nasty as all hell. Human beings are shit. Romero knows this is at least partly true. One part of why I love the scientist vs. military conflict here is because each side is presented as having their faults or their wrongdoings; not every individual is bad, but neither whole side is presented as totally in the right. For instance, though the military men are all pretty much horrible human beings, except for Miguel (he’s just gone absolutely insane), the scientists are not all rosy and perfect either – Logan and his experiments are a little barbaric, mostly considering he’s opted not to tell the soldiers about using other dead soldiers for extra meat. So sure, the scientists are ultimately trying to do the right thing, in whatever way it can be accomplished. There’s still an unethical aspect to the way they’re going about the mission. What Romero does with this plot is show us how not all soldiers are culpable in the terrible actions of soldiers in general, just as not all scientists are working towards the greater good most scientists try and work towards achieving. Every side has their good souls, every side their bad. But the bad ones – man, does Romero ever show us how bad they can get when the going gets tough. Generally it’s the sense of isolation which gets to me about this Romero masterpiece – it has so much suspense and tension because of its setting, generally lending itself to an air of eeriness. Night of the Living Dead was located mostly in the farmhouse, so there is a real sense of tightness, the characters enclosed and withdrawing further into the house at times. Dawn of the Dead even dared to get a little more claustrophobic because even within the mall, once zombies started to overrun the place there was nowhere for the survivors to go, or at least limited options of where to start running. What’s devastatingly intense at times about Day of the Dead is the fact they’re all underground. Even with the helicopter up above and a way to fly off, there’s still a ton of zombies trying to get in. Plus, once Miguel does the unthinkable after his craziness reaches its peak, the zombies filter into the underground bunker. So it’s WAY WORSE than the mall in the previous movie because so far below ground there are less ways to escape than a huge building aboveground. Add to that all the human elements of Romero’s wonderfully written screenplay, you’ve got yourself a backload of tension and unnerving suspense happening on an almost constant basis. Another 5 star film from George A. Romero. I’m huge on his films in general, not just the zombie work. But god damn it if he doesn’t make the greatest possible use of the living dead, adding solid horror to solid writing concerning sociopolitical issues to create a unique brand of horror sub-genre storytelling. Not every last piece of his zombie movies are full of issues – some times it’s just great and vicious horror. Though, it’s hard to deny how well Romero captures the issues of the day. Moreover, still as I write this in 2015, the issues continue to stay relevant: we’re almost always living in an era where the brutality of the military and politicians with their want for war come up against more rational, scientific approaches to the world around us. Day of the Dead is a masterful horror film in general and one of the greatest zombie films ever made. Personally, it’s my favourite of Romero’s Dead series because there’s a wholly unique quality to it even above his others. If you’ve not yet seen this, please do so. Particularly if you are big into zombies – you’ll see a lot of this film’s influence in other more contemporary zombie movies, as well as The Walking Dead of course. And really, it is just a solid, effective work of horror well worth your undivided attention.
Dawn of the Dead. 1978. Directed & Written by George A. Romero. Starring David Emge, Ken Foree, Scott H. Reiniger, Gaylen Ross, David Crawford, David Early, Richard France, Howard Smith, Daniel Dietrich, Fred Baker, and James A. Baffico. A Laurel Group Production. Rated R. 127 minutes. Horror
★★★★★ George A. Romero started the modern zombie craze with his 1968 horror movie Night of the Living Dead. Ten years later, he came back swinging with Dawn of the Dead. Full of iconic moments, even iconic zombies themselves (see: Hare Krishna zombie), Romero gives us an even more nuanced, darker, and at times funny, bit of horror cinema.
A lot of people nowadays are hugely into the zombie sub-genre. For good reason, as these Dead films from Romero, including the ones after it, are a whole lot of horror fun. The reason why Dawn of the Dead is so celebrated and loved after all these years is because not only does it do a fine job creeping you the hell out, like Romero’s 1968 film, even more than that it again explores social issues. Soon as the characters in this movie make their way to a mall, hordes of zombies trying to get inside, you can tell there will be some kind of commentary on Romero’s part. Dawn of the Dead is written incredibly well, with good characters, dialogue and action, as well as the fact Goblin does the soundtrack, Dario Argento worked on the music/editing, and master of special effects Tom Savini supplied all the zombie nasty work. This is one damn good piece of zombie horror and it’s no wonder we’re still talking about it today as much as we do. After the dead reanimate and start to feast on the flesh of the living, a group of people hoping to survive make their way via helicopter to a large mall: Stephen “Flyboy” Andrews (David Emge) and Francine Parker (Gaylen Ross), along with two SWAT team members Peter Washington (Ken Foree) and Roger DeMarco (Scott Reiniger). Upon arrival, they try and set up camp finding a safe room to spend their nights, food for sustenance and any other various items they can manage to whisk away from the stores in the mall. Only problem is the zombies have filled up a nice majority of the shopping complex, so they’ve got to maneuver their way around the huge building efficiently, and quietly, as humanly possible.
But when Roger gets infected by the zombie virus, their situation changes. With the situation inside the mall getting worse with every passing day, the group is forced to confront other options; that is, if there are any left. One of the most intriguing things about this movie is how Romero expands on the idea of a post-apocalyptic United States of America. During Night of the Living Dead, we do see a microcosm of the aftermath with all the sheriff’s boys out hunting ghouls and seeming to have a grand ole time, plus there are the news reports and all those aspects. However, with Dawn of the Dead this plot allows Romero to give us a bit bigger of a look at the post-zombie society. Big part of that is the mall itself.
When they first arrive, Francine questions why the reanimated corpses would be at the mall, to which Stephen replies “Memory of what they used to do; this was an important place in their lives“. Later on, as the group listens to a radio, a commentator talks about remembering past lives and how the actions of the zombies are merely them working out what they once used to do. The thing I find interesting, the social aspect of Romero’s screenplay, is how he chose the mall/shopping complex itself. It speaks volumes about human society just in the number of living dead wandering around the building and outside; it’s evident how involved we as humans are in consumerism already, but Romero – back in 1978 – was already on to the fact we’re creatures of habit, as well as creatures of leisure wanting to shamble our way into the mall, mindlessly picking away at the things inside (a.k.a “shopping”). So I think, again like his first zombie movie, this one can be considered relevant today, if not even more so than it was on its original release. The way we consume things as a society of people has gotten out of hand, especially now in the post-2000 world. Say what you want about Dawn of the Dead, or the films which follow it/the one preceding it, Romero infuses his horror with a ton of commentary. Not every last shot is done like this. Overall, though, you cannot deny Romero’s zombie films encapsulate social products of their time and even then they go on with their strength for years. I won’t be forgetting these films any time soon, if ever. I have to talk about Tom Savini. As someone whose love for horror grew out of older films intent on using practical makeup effects, before CGI ruled the industry, Savini is one of my personal gods. Honestly, even the first three films he worked on show off his immense talent – from his uncredited work on Bob Clark’s Dead of Night and putting his hands into the loose Ed Gein inspired Deranged, to doing fun stuff on Romero’s 1977 unusual yet awesome vampire flick Martin, to the stellar makeup/special effects he did in this film. I won’t go through the man’s entire filmography, but I’m just trying to show you how immediately Savini made an impression on the horror movie industry. In fact, Romero wanted him to work on the original ’68 Dead film. Unfortunately at the time Savini was called off to war; he actually applied some of the nastiness he saw during the Vietnam war as a combat photographer to the special effects/makeup he did in films. Luckily, they got together for this movie and did a ton of bloody, fun horror work.
The look of the zombies alone is great. There’s a satirical part in how they look, as they’re all zombies yet representative of our own zombie-like qualities as humans. So while I’ve seen some horror fans wonder why the zombies are blue-ish coloured, I think there’s a wickedly dark comedic edge to their look. At the same time, they’re still fucking terrifying! Not just that, the head shots and the flesh eating and all that rotten business works well. Most of all, it’s the blood itself I find so wonderful. There’s nothing like a good looking bit of blood on camera and something about the blood in Dawn of the Dead is at once cartoon-ish and simultaneously nauseating: its rich red makes it appear almost like paint, like comic book blood, and the thick texture of it seeping out of chests/heads/et cetera has a visceral, raw essence which is kind of gross. Needless to say, without boring you too much to death on my thoughts about the effects overall, without Tom Savini this would not at all be the same type of horror film. Furthermore, I’d venture to say the zombie sub-genre wouldn’t be as rich and magical in terms of effects if Savini hadn’t done such good work with Romero here. This movie has influenced so many filmmakers and endlessly captivated the minds of legions of horror fanatics, and will continue to until the end of time. It’s hard to say anything that’s not been said before concerning Dawn of the Dead. One thing is for sure, though, George A. Romero is the man who gave us modern zombies and this film is an intense piece of horror cinema which dives further into the zombie lore he created in 1968, as well as touches on aspects of human nature from friendship in close quarters to a reflection of our inherent consumerism as people in the 20th century. 5 stars, right through the roof and to the sky!
As I said in my review of Romero’s first zombie feature, Day of the Dead is actually my personal favourite. All the same, each of the three first films in his Dead series are perfect in my mind and neither are technically better than the others, at least that’s how I see it; I just prefer Day over the others, something more apocalyptic and foreboding about its plot.
Regardless, Dawn of the Dead constantly affects me, it always entertains and I love the two-disc DVD set this came in, which I ordered a few years back now. Lots of fun features on the release, as well. If you’re a fan it’s worth the cash. If you’ve not seen this: smarten up and watch it for Halloween.
Mad Max: Fury Road. 2015. Directed by George Miller. Written by Nick Lathouris, Brendan MCarthy, and George Miller. Starring Charlize Theron, Tom Hardy, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Josh Helman, Josh Helman, Nathan Jones, Zoe Kravitz, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton. Village Roadshow Pictures. Rated 14A. 120 minutes. Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi
★★★1/2
To start, I’m a fan of the original Mad Max films. Even Beyond Thunderdome, for all its faults, was some good fun; not saying it was great or anything, but fun indeed. I wasn’t exactly hyped about George Miller going back and revisiting Max Rockatansky. Although the addition of Tom Hardy and then Charlize Theron really intrigued me, I like them both, I do like Miller, so it was worth a shot.
What came out is a pretty good action film, with that post-apocalyptic-Max feel. However, it isn’t all perfect. Yet even with a few blemishes I do think this is absolutely the best action film I’ve seen since 2000, and probably up there with some of the best action flicks in the past 20-25 years. A lot of fun practical effects mixed with the familiar Mad Max story, plus an excellent duo in Hardy and Theron, make this a real fun movie.
Fury Road sees Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) in a predicament immediately, and though he leads an amazing, fast-paced chase he just can’t seem to shake the ragged crew of post-apocalyptic savages chasing him down. The opening sequence is real fun, real fast, and gets the adrenaline prepped for a non-stop action chase scene for about two hours. Things really kick off as Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) decides to detour and take some precious “breeders“, as they’re called in Miller’s film, away from the horror they face at the hands of the wretched, dried out Immortan Joe (familiar Mad Max face Hugh Keays-Byrne) and to a greener, happier place. As Furiosa takes the women and a War Rig off-route, they eventually come across Max who is trying to escape the War Boys, especially the lunatic Nux (Nicholas Hoult) who used Max as a “blood bag” sucking him dry of type-O blood. After an initial rough patch Furiosa and Max, each for their own reasons, decides to face down the evil Immortan Joe and take back the Wasteland from his awful grip. I really enjoyed how Miller took the Mad Max world he’d already created and basically added on, like building pieces onto a house once you’ve got more money. Sure, I like the simplicity of the first film, and the second. I think one of the reasons people weren’t into Beyond Thunderdome, aside from it not particularly being well-written or directed due to Miller sharing duties with George Ogilvie, is because the plot of the third film was so much more out there even within the universe of Mad Max that this set it apart too far from the original movie and its sequel.
What works for Fury Road is the fact that Miller had much more money to work with this time around – the difference between Beyond Thunderdome (somewhere near $13-million) and Fury Road (about $150-million) is roughly $137-million, whereas the very first was only around $650,000 and the sequel at $2-million. So with a big budget comes not just the ability to spend more on effects and costumes and cars and overall design, Miller also secured Hardy and Theron, as well as a nice cast of secondary characters, plus the returning Keays-Byrne who played Toecutter in the first Mad Max. Miller really put the budget to use when it comes to effects – of course there are bits and pieces which are pure CGI, but the real important work is all done practically. It’s actually a wonder that nobody was killed or seriously injured on the set during some of the wild stunts. It’s equally wonderful that Miller is 70 and directing the most high-octane film of his career. There’s the same weirdness of Beyond Thunderdome here, only the actors in Fury Road are better than those he worked with then – and yes, I also include Mel Gibson who didn’t step it up for Thunderdome either. Plus, the budget allows for Miller to not really need to worry too much about one set, one single location, and instead he put all his energy into coming up with the most inventive chases, cars, weaponry I’ve seen in a film since The Matrix. My only real complaints about this movie have to do with the fact that Fury Road is almost totally one long chase right until the end. That’s not entirely true, as there are moments where things break down, and of course the moments before the big chase is ignited, as well as the film’s finish. But, yes – most of the movie is a big chase. I’m not saying that’s bad. I really enjoyed it, the adrenaline was pumping from start to finish; my girlfriend and I each rocked in our seats, back and forth sometimes with the punches and blasts and other events. All the same, SPOILER AHEAD: at the end when it’s like “Oh the Green Place doesn’t exist – let’s head back to where we came from”, it personally felt a bit frustrating.
Yet some of the pieces of this film really begged to be explored, and Miller was unable to go too deeply into any of the characters and their backstory while they were all fighting, driving, trying to get away constantly from Immortan Joe in the bleak desert. Not saying there is nothing in the way of backstory. Max goes through many a moment of deep trauma, flashing back to the obvious death of his wife and child in the Wasteland.
What really gets me about the lack of character development is the women. I thought they were excellent characters, what little we knew of them, but there was so much more could have been done with them if Miller could’ve allowed a few points where the action ceased long enough for more dialogue to happen. I’m not a person who needs constant expository dialogue – not at all, as a writer myself I don’t particularly like too much exposition or dialogue in general, I like short, succinct information in the best and most fluent way possible. I just wish we could’ve learned more about the society these women were forced to endure; I don’t need any graphic depictions, but at least let us hear them chat about it more than the brief pieces we were allowed in the film. I guess there are plans for sequels – I heard at one point Hardy was either willing to sign or already had signed on for at least another Max film. So maybe we’ll see more in those about it all. I just think that sometimes, even in action movies, we really need a bit more character development, in order to both care for the characters more and also to get our fill of them, like we always want to do with great characters. That being said, the dialogue was good stuff, and I think they did a perfect job making the female characters less typical than we normally expect (my favourite bit is when one of the women says “doesn’t anybody notice the flashing lights and the approaching gunfire?” or something along those lines, which I thought was funny and clever). Not to rag on Miller, he does a great job, I just wanted to know more about the characters.
I think my problem with the female characters stems from the hype on this film about how Miller had a feminist come in to oversee the dialogue, so that the women in the movie wouldn’t seem like they do in all other mainstream Hollywood films, and to ensure they weren’t under-represented as so often happens. Yet, there’s really no big difference. Other than the fact these women are fighting against the patriarchy and trying to escape, there isn’t much else in the way of their characters, or their dialogue, that spoke to me as having been looked over thoroughly by a feminist. Aside from Furiosa, we don’t get a whole lot out of the other female characters.
Another major problem I have is that stupid guitar playing character. Why, George? Did you not stop and think about this future apocalyptic wasteland, its lack of fuel, and how that big rig would’ve had to be converting gas to electricity with such a massive amplifier and all that? Sure, it’s fun to see a wild guitar player almost playing a kind of battle anthem, but does it need to be there? No. Does it make any sense? Nah. You can try to say other things don’t make sense, I just think that this little character was unnecessary and foolish, and just another excuse for something weird to add in. I liked a lot of the other wild-looking maniacs, this guy was just dumb, and the whole truck with the amp on it and him playing looked ridiculous. There is a lot of great work going on in Fury Road, from the costumes, to the weird cast of extras and characters on the various cars, to the car designs themselves to the acting.
Hardy doesn’t have much to say, which fits for Rockatansky’s character. He plays the tough and silent deal well. Hardy also further infuses the character with a quiet humour, which comes out more clearly in certain cases than others.
Theron is always a great actor and she does good work here with the character of Furiosa. She is tough, and there are also times where we see the vulnerability lurking inside her. I think Theron is very expressive when it comes to the looks she gives, especially with her eyes, and this gives Furiosa character and soul underneath all the anger she is containing. Her and Hardy work well together, as well as look like they kicked each other’s ass in the initial fight scene they share – good pairing. There’s no doubt Mad Max: Fury Road is a real fun and great post-apocalyptic action film. For me? A 3.5 out of 5 star movie. It has a few flaws – Miller opts not to go for too much character development and instead works well with the movie’s design/atmosphere, relying on the performance of a couple fantastic actors to make the characters interesting enough to care about. Not to say they’re bare bones characters, but they’re not exactly fleshed out much either. Regardless, this is non-stop adrenaline, and I can’t say I didn’t enjoy myself. There were times I wished the runtime were a little shorter. Other times I was hooting at the War Boys springing around on their bending poles, the explosives going off every so often, and generally having a good time. It isn’t the smartest action film out there – no matter what people tell you. Though, I like how Miller opted to have Furiosa push a very feminist-type agenda saving the so-called “breeders” from Immortan Joe and no doubt most of their primitive, creepy society. Perhaps if there are sequels Miller could continue to fight the patriarchy through his balls-to-the-wall action like he did here because that is something I found highly interesting, certainly when compared to so many run of the mill action flicks out there these days.
In a sea of crap films, a 70-year old George Miller does what many young action filmmakers are not doing: generally thrilling the hell out of people. His use of practical effects and stunts instead of going for CGI-laden scenes from one shot to the next, in a day and age where The Avengers and all the rest of Marvel’s garbage is the latest hot thing, is really refreshing, and it helps to show young filmmakers in general that they don’t need to rely on computers, they can get things done perfectly on the day of shooting, in certain cases anyways. See this movie, enjoy – don’t try and let people make this into something it isn’t – but take it for what it’s worth, and see that Fury Road delivers as a great action adventure in the post-apocalyptic world of Max Rockatansky and George Miller.
