Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Score: 5 / 5

All hail George Miller. Brilliantly reimagining his iconic earlier films, our director has also sharply proven that summer blockbusters can be high art and chillingly prophetic. (All the more important now, seeing as the blockbuster count this summer is unusually high.) What we have here is the most dynamic, fast-paced, gritty, intelligent action film I've ever seen, and one that almost never lets up for its full two-hour span. Sure, there are brief moments of connection, despair, and planning, but they are sharply underscored by the knowledge that danger is literally closing in behind us.

And perhaps the best hint to that fact lies in Tom Hardy's eyes. For a film with such little dialogue, we desperately needed actors who could give us a full view into their characters, even when their faces are covered by metal masks or a ton of facepaint. And Hardy delivers as our Max with little more than his frantic eyes, which command the screen with every flicker; one wonders if he studied animals in captivity to achieve his fierce paranoia and desperate cunning. His grunts also reveal a lot, and the two in tandem are enough to make us laugh -- even while sitting on the edge of our seats -- in his first encounter with Charlize Theron's character.

The simple story is thus: Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, the villain from the first Mad Max in 1979) has established himself in a post-apocalyptic desert as a warlord/cult leader of a crude civilization that prizes vehicle fuel and water above all else. Imperator Furiosa, some kind of female (or maybe sexless) official in Joe's kingdom, helps his five wives (chosen for their fertility) escape Joe's harem/prison. When Joe learns of this betrayal, he immediately gives chase, alerting his berserker War Boys and nearby highway gangsters to help him. One of his War Boys (Nux, played by Nicholas Hoult) requires blood due to some illness, and so the recently captured Max (a universal donor, apparently) is bound to the front of his car to be his intravenous supplier. Chaos ensues, Max and Furiosa develop a working camaraderie, and more chaos ensues. It's a vision of hell, and yet it's, as Nux says, "a lovely day!"

Although the title suggests that Max is, as in the previous films, the protagonist/hero/antihero, I am not so sure that is the case here. While the film opens with Max and arguably ends with a focus on him, his role through much of the plot is largely inconsequential, or at the very most supporting. Rather, Furiosa performs the inciting incident, singly carries the weight of her journey, and decisively controls her own fate. In fact, more than once she reminded me of Ripley (Alien, 1979), but maybe that's mostly because of all the sweat. And the large mechanical arm/gun she swings around like a pro.

Perhaps the best element of this film, though, is its color palette. Leave it to George Miller to make a desert wasteland look like it belongs in James Cameron's Avatar (2009). The blinding whites and yellows turn into striking blues and blacks by night, the War Boys' black and white body paint stand out dramatically from the sandy landscape, and of course the many explosions -- notably in the sandstorm sequence -- look rather like surrealist paintings. Miller heightens the frenzy with his fast-paced editing and manipulated frame rate, which has a bizarre effect; usually the action sequences (which comprise most of the movie) have the funky frame rate (sometimes faster, sometimes slower). This both distanced me from the action and made me feel like I was there watching it really happen, because I imagine myself seeing in shaky, jittery visuals while having sunstroke and fighting. Does that make sense?

If not, we can always consider the other main reason for this crazy aesthetic. It's called "Mad" Max for a reason. Even many of the filmmakers are bonkers. Theron has said that she thought she might die during some of the stunts, which Miller says were almost entirely practical. I guess their crazy infects us though, and it is a great thing. So go on and give this one a watch. You won't regret it.

IMDb: Mad Max: Fury Road

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Score: 3.5 / 5

You could hardly ask for a more explosive start to a summer blockbuster season, especially one with the lineup we have this year. But Avengers: Age of Ultron does something a bit surprising, and it's something I'm not sure paid off. Only time will tell, but it seemed that Marvel Studios might have dictated the film's central theme in order to make a statement about its future productions. That is, the characters' oft-repeated sentiments that change is inevitable, change is necessary, and evolution is coming -- coupled with the film's ending -- certainly seem to be preparing the vast fanbase for drastic changes as our stars move on with their lives and new stars jump on board the superhero express.

I suppose this theme of evolution implies both hope and tragedy, which might be why this film is far more melancholy than most of the films in its universe. Make no mistake, you parents who take young children to these movies: This picture is violent, it is heavy (though not as dark as, say, The Winter Soldier), and it is wildly complex. Its ending has no shawarma, no festivities, and not even much closure. In fact, it's about as tonally opposite to Guardians of the Galaxy as Marvel could have made it. If you know me, you know I prefer darker flicks to lighter pics, so why didn't I rate Ultron higher? Because it's a bit of a mess.

If we want to dig into it and read that the tonal instability of the film results from its central bittersweet heart, I can appreciate the otherwise messy script. The sheer number of characters is considerably harder to swallow, though. We have our core team of six (-ish?), but then we see a constant flow of secondary characters from the other films that pop in for a few hot seconds (Nick Fury's presence did nothing for me this time around, guys, though Agent Carter can come back any damn time!), and then Whedon has the nerve to throw in new characters who deserve more screen time and script treatment than they are given. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are pretty fabulous, though neither gets much chance to shine until the last half-hour or so of movie time. On the other hand, though, one of this film's greatest successes lies in its greater appreciation for Black Widow and Hawkeye, though Ultron is probably the closest we'll get to a standalone film for either of them. Specifically, the tender moments between Black Widow and Hulk are charming, if a little forced.

Who else is new? Oh yes, Ultron, the weirdly sassy megalomaniac spawn of Tony Stark's hubris. James Spader's voice is nice and all, but come on. A supervillain? Hardly. This hunk of computer-generated junk is only dangerous because Joss Whedon's team made him look sleek and a little vampiric. Oh, and the character's consciousness can be omnipresent, which is pretty awesome. But for someone (something?) who has literally all the world's information inside his head, he has pretty basic plans for global destruction. Turn a city into a meteor, and annihilate humans with it. But does he use his supercomputer skills to try and cause chaos around the world, maybe even as a distraction for his foes? Nope. Except in his attempted creation of Vision, which is actually rather wonderful until the Avengers hijack him, essentially hobbling Ultron's master plan before the climactic battle has even started (what kind of plot device is that??).

The worst, though: Ultron isn't even interesting. I mean, we never ever think that he might be good (Stark, baby, you named your own computer Jarvis...does "Ultron" have any kind of sweet, familiar ring to it at all?). From the first moment we hear his voice, we know he's evil, even though that particular characteristic is never explained or qualified. As a full-fledged creation, he's strangely neurotic, so he often feels like a man in a suit. Which is just weird. Okay, I might be a little biased because I just saw Ex Machina and its AI character Ava is sympathetic, sweet, and totally ominous. Hell, even the Winter Soldier was a scarier villain than Ultron, if we're going for sheer screen presence. The Pinocchio song Ultron sings is a little unnerving, but it doesn't quite fit with the character (though it might have, had the filmmakers made him into some kind of Frankenstein's monster who became disillusioned with Stark).

Instead of interesting, our villain is a product of rotten computer programs, and he unleashes a legion of uniform robots that serve much like the Chitauri in the first Avengers. That is, bodies to be destroyed by the droves. This brings me to my main problem with the film: the action scenes. They're fast, they're furious, they're even pretty darn cool. But the camera is so shaky, the editing so sharp, and the attention to all the characters so uneven that I can scarcely keep track of which hero is doing what and where and why before another set piece explodes. Add to that the downright insane levels of complicated scenarios our heroes need to fix (much like the dwarves' inane plan at the end of the second Hobbit), and the plot becomes a nightmare that feels much to large for Whedon's hands. That's not to say there aren't a few nice moments, notably the opening sequence, and near the end when all the heroes gather in a crumbling church to fight off the horde in slow-motion. And for all the filmmakers' cleverness in making the team actually work together as a team, the camera and editing don't do much to help our awareness of it. Rather, we are bombarded with things smashing and sparking and breaking and the drama is just absent.

Maybe I'm just bitter because it felt more like a video game than a movie. Special effects are great, but when you sacrifice decent character development and plot points in order to show off a huge climax scene or some cool fight moves, I'm going to roll my eyes until a hero shows off his muscles.

That said, I loved the stupid thing. It's noisy, it's silly, it's messy, it's downright fun. Is it epic? Hell no. But (despite obnoxious popular claims of everything being "epic") how many movies these days actually are, even in the superhero tradition? What it is is a rollicking (if not quite swashbuckling) action picture with some of our favorite characters doing ridiculous things and looking great in the meantime. Parts are heavier than its predecessor, and yet the whole thing feels less consequential (as a direct result of the overblown fight sequences), and so it's a pretty spot-on sequel, as far as that goes. And its last gambit is one that deserves a little nervous consideration: Do the last few scenes mean that we might not be seeing much more of Hulk, Iron Man, Hawkeye, or Thor? Don't get me wrong: Disney is not going to let these bankables slip away. And I haven't been keeping track of the stars' contracts. But Hulk running away, Iron Man's odd send-off, Hawkeye's tender homecoming, and Thor's adventurous exit all smacked of finality in a way we have not yet seen. Our last moments were instead focused on the new Avengers: War Machine, Falcon, Vision, and Scarlet Witch, led by Captain America and Black Widow. It does make one wonder what will happen in Civil War and Ragnarok, if Hulk will get a standalone picture (unlikely), and if our current heroes will be reduced to supporting roles or even cameos in Infinity War.

But we still have a long damn time before all that.

P.S. There's an awkward little mid-credits scene that reminds us that Thanos is still a thing, and that he's pissed off about these Infinity Stones getting scattered all over. Does anyone else get the feeling that Marvel Studios is going for a Harry Potter thing where it's not until the last movie that the villains and heroes fight over control of a set of holy objects? Maybe if they spread the big plot points out a wee bit we wouldn't need two parts to the climax. Just a thought.

P.P.S. I think the film might have been stronger without Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, simply because they distracted us from the dynamics of our core heroes. And because I think they fit in better with the X-Men than the Avengers. But both actors were great, and Witchy rocked in the climax. I guess if someone needed to die, I'm sort of glad it was a new person rather than one of our favorites. But is Quicky dead? That last shot of him next to Hawkeye was kind of bizarre, and in a movie where the villain can transfer his consciousness at will, I'm not counting anybody out.

IMDb: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Ex Machina (2015)

Score: 5 / 5

Easily the most surprising thriller in recent memory, Ex Machina stylishly welcomes us into what is sure to be a summer movie season for the record books. Though its cool facade never seeks to approach blockbuster status, its pristine gloss and wildly intelligent craft far surpass most of the crap going through our cinemas in the last two months. What we have here is a concept-driven meditation on humanity, technology, and their increasingly ambiguous relationship. In fact, I would consider this picture to be the dark sister of Spike Jonze's 2013 Her; in each, we see a human man develop his understanding of an artificial intelligence (not insignificantly coded as female) before his attachment becomes romantic.

But it is, to be sure, the Gothic version of that tale. We have a futuristic haunted house, an ambiguous host with bizarre idiosyncrasies, bodies stuffed in closets, guests-turned-prisoners under observation and study, and even a particularly disturbing murder. So who's who? Okay, the lonelyheart oddball is played with striking vulnerability by Domhnall Gleeson, who is certainly one to keep on your radar (he is a busy rising star, with roles in Calvary, Anna Karenina, and the upcoming The Revenant and Star Wars: Episode VII). He is matched by the pitch-perfect Oscar Isaac (a personal favorite, bringing to mind his other recent triumph in A Most Violent Year) whose buff machismo is almost as subversive as his character's plans. And Alicia Vikander steals the show with her incredible movement work as the Artificial Intelligence robot called Ava. Most importantly, first-time director Alex Garland controls his film with a measured, contemplative eye and a calculated grasp on a lot of abstractions. Here he presents a gripping thriller made all the more important with its theological underpinnings, to say nothing of its technological, sociological, or even sexual dimensions (the romantic/erotic drive of this film lies most potently in what we don't clearly see: Ava "undressing" her previous incarnations, Caleb's voyeurism, Nathan's sadistic control over his servant and even Caleb (thinly disguised as flirtation)).

Ex Machina is slow but never ponderous, and its examination of human existence is almost unbearably precise, if suspiciously broad. Garland's camera (rather, cinematographer Rob Hardy's camera) lingers over exquisite but sparse sets, forcing us to consider factors of wealth and materialism in Nathan's world. Gorgeous shots of clouds passing over mountains are juxtaposed with sessions between Caleb and Ava, serving as a breath of fresh air out of the confining artificial light of Nathan's underground lair and reinforcing an unspoken conflict of interests between nature and artifice, God and man. It is not by mistake that it is outside that Caleb receives almost divine inspiration to question Nathan's motivations and behaviors, and where he ultimately decides to betray Nathan. In one outdoor instance, Caleb asks if Nathan ever feels like God, and in an indoor scene not long after, Nathan declares himself to be like God.

If you're thinking that this movie sounds all over the place, I promise it's not. But it does suggest a wide range of hot discussion points for you to immediately hop on as you're walking out of the auditorium. It's intimate but abstract, and its power lies in its almost fantastic quality: Like a parable, it presents us with archetypes and Big Picture themes, lets them do damage to each other, and forces us to make our own interpretive conclusions about what happens. All while we sit on the edge of our seats.

And you thought you were just going to relax at the movies this summer.

P.S. - If you were wondering, I think this film brings a harsh focus on the more common concept of deus ex machina ("god from the machine") specifically in the absence of deus in the title. I found the film's theological themes particularly stimulating as a result of the conspicuous lack of a "god-force" in the film. But that might be a discussion for another time.

IMDb: Ex Machina