Mad Max
Christian Toto
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)

In a time when we’re skittish about whether schools should be open or teach online to combat COVID-19, here’s a movie about the fear of school that has no relevance whatsoever. This is Mark L. Lester’s “Class of 1999,” a nasty sci-fi pulp thriller from 1990 about a high school experience even scarier than surviving …

The post ‘Class of 1999’ – A Perfectly Disreputable B-Movie Experience appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

(Review Source)
Christian Toto
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)

The great renaissance of Disney animation took off in 1989 thanks to “The Little Mermaid” and, two years later, “Beauty and the Beast.” After years of forgettable, ambitious-but-failed animated offerings, the studio had finally returned to the glory days when Uncle Walt called the shots. Nestled in between Ariel the mermaid and Belle the beauty …

The post The Thrilling Animated Classic Hiding in Plain Sight on Disney Plus appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

(Review Source)
Christian Toto
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)

“Train to Busan Presents: Peninsula” is the “Caddyshack 2” of zombie movie sequels. Sound harsh? Perhaps, but that captures the chasm between the brilliant original and its successor. Consider what we endure in the highly anticipated follow-up: Paper-thin characters Generic dialogue Zombies reduced to supporting players in their own franchise Maudlin moments a Hallmark Channel …

The post ‘Train to Busan Presents: Peninsula’ Is Unnecessary in Every Way appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

(Review Source)
National Review Staff
Good luck getting the city’s current crop of civic leaders, elected and elite, to enforce the laws.
(Review Source)
Plugged In
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
(Review Source)
Society Reviews
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Stop me if you have heard this story before... "Set in a world where climate change has brought about the apocalypse"
(Review Source)
Jay Dyer
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)

By: Jay Dyer I remember when I was 14, there was only one VHS rental in the small town where I lived, and as a result, I think I rented...

(Review Source)
Jay Dyer
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)


By: Jay As with many 80s films I grew up with, they seemed quite innocuous on the surface level, but as you mature, you are able to reflect on the...

(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
PJ Media One of the more prominent among the manifold idiocies of the environmental left is the idea that oil is evil. Recently, according to a press release from the Western Energy Alliance, a non-profit trade association representing more than 450 companies engaged in exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West, more than 400 groups converged on the White House to demand we keep fossil fuels in the ground.They did this, of course, while waving signs made of plastic and having driven or flown in fossil fuel-powered vehicles to Washington. And probably while drinking from plastic or aluminum water bottles, or while sipping an extra-soy-macchiato latte, all of which require fossil fuels to produce. These are the same sorts who tried to block offshore drilling in the Arctic by blockading a harbor with kayaks and canoes made of plastic.To shine light on the idiocy, this week the WEA challenged people who insist that oil is evil to live a full seven days without using fossil fuels. To any who would accept the challenge, they would find this is impossible.Said WEA president Tim Wigley:Environmental groups have actively promoted ending fossil fuel consumption. The problem is the average person doesn’t understand where things come from....Taking these groups at their word, we created the Challenge to show that oil and natural gas products are not easily dispensable. In fact, it’s quite the contrary; fossil fuels make modern living possible. They power our economy and provide the basic feedstock used to manufacture smartphones, clothing and medicine and make our world safer, healthier and more convenient.Indeed, the world the environmentalists imagine best describes a post-apocalyptic movie. Said Gene Koprowski, director of marketing for the Heartland Institute:This idea of going without fossil fuels for a week -- wasn’t that the premise of the Mad Max series of films, a post-apocalyptic world where fossil fuel was scarce to non-existent?Think life without a car to drive or fuel to heat your home is pleasant? This is just dumb. It’s not pleasant. It is like living after the apocalypse.There are electric cars available from Tesla and other manufacturers today. But to generate power for the batteries for these cars, the owners hook up the car to an electrical outlet ... and rely on energy churned out by the coal-burning power plant down the way.They can’t escape from fossil fuels, these electric car makers. There are lab-based alternatives to fossil fuels for the production of plastics and fibers, etc., but to my knowledge, these are not commercially viable presently.Nearly everything we wear, eat, or use has fossil fuels in the supply chain somewhere. Even the carpets most of us walk on are made of synthetic fibers. To most of the environmental left, food magically appears in the grocery store,; iPhones and other modern conveniences are conjured by Technology Gnomes in the middle of the night, rather than having been manufactured using toxic processes.Perhaps the problem is that environmentalists can't see the overseas plants which make their gadgets -- but they can see the oil rigs. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/blog/oil-trade-group-challenges-environmentalists-enough-talk-try-actually-living-without-fossil-fuels/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
(Review Source)
Tim Markatos
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
What, in 2015, makes a movie one of the best of the year? Does it have to entertain? Enlighten? Does it have to have a flawless screenplay, flawless acting, flawless editing—whatever that adjective even means in such a subjective context? Does it need to have an agenda, or be free of one? Is it allowed to be politically incorrect? If it puts a straight white man to sleep, is it out of the running? If it offends a person of color, does that automatically make it trash? Coming up with an annual best of list is always a tricky business. On the one hand film is, at close of day, a matter of personal preference. I'm personally neutral to superheroes and star wars; many of my friends would never even think of watching anything else. Yet as an amateur film critic, I'm never content to settle for a purely subjective view of cinema. Surely, I think to myself, there must be some objective standard against which to judge everything, so that when I unveil this list every year I can spring to the defense of my picks with more than just my opinion as artillery. If there were such a Holy Grail of criticism, every critic under the sun would arrive at the same conclusions in their year-end curations. That not being the case—for the best, honestly—I have to settle for my intuition. The movies that floated to the top of my list this year all met a basic level of filmmaking competency; so did many others not enumerated here. What I found to be the special ingredient common to my ten "bests" (+one honorable mention) was a certain "why cinema?" factor. The theater will always be the destination for the franchise blockbusters and shows of special effects derring-do, but for any other genre a theatrical release is no longer a foregone conclusion. It isn't just that more and more movies go straight to On Demand: it's that there are ever-expanding ways to tell the stories that once may have only been tellable on the big screen. Why pay upwards of $15 plus parking and popcorn to lock yourself into a room at the edge of town for some 90 to 180 minutes when you could listen to a podcast, binge watch a TV series, read a book? Why go to the movies at all when we have personally-curated newsletters and Instagram feeds and Snapstories? I don't have answers to these questions. What I do have are 11 movies that convinced me of the unique contribution of cinema to storytelling, and I hope you approach them with an open mind to consider sharing them with me. (One last note before we begin: There's a 2009 movie on this list that I included here because it had a U.S. theatrical release for the first time in 2015. For posterity, I wouldn't consider it a 2015 film at all, but for the sake of a year-in-review, I'm opting to keep it here.)
(Review Source)
The Federalist Staff
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
The 'Purge' films invert political reality by making religious conservatives the ones in favor of lax crime laws that make the streets more dangerous.
(Review Source)
John Nolte
With 37 reviews in, director George Miller’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” sits at an impressive 97% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Many of the reviews are outright raves and make clear that after four decades as a filmmaker, Miller went old school to make the action genre once again feel fresh and vital. “Fury Road’s”  action sequences go back to the future by actually respecting the idea of spatial logic. Better still, there is almost no CGI. Gee, what a concept. The fourquel, which hits theatres Friday, is supposed to launch a brand new franchise. Star Tom Hardy, who steps in for Mel Gibson as Max Rockatansky (aka Mad Max aka The Man with No Name aka The Road Warrior), is attached to three more films. This is remarkable for a number of reasons. To begin with, it has been a full 30 years since the last “Mad Max” (1985’s “Thunderdome”). On top of that, Miller is 70 years of age. Most directors are past their prime at that age, especially when it comes to action films. And then there’s the not-small detail that not a single one of the previous “Mad Max” films were huge hits here in America. “Mad
(Review Source)
John Nolte
Mad Max is an open world, third person-action game in which insanity and savagery run free and jerry-rigged cars rule the landscape.
(Review Source)
The Federalist Staff
The ‘Mad Max’ Update Emits A Primal Scream In a world gone mad, the mad are the sane ones. May 15, 2015 By Rebecca Cusey In “Mad Max: Fury Road,” it makes perfect sense that an army wages war with an electric guitarist suspended high above a battle rig. As the army screams, he bangs out their heartbeat in electric metal riffs. The movie is a heavy-metal world, a long expression of emotion and testosterone, a frenetic spin and jive of life and death among the ruins of civilization. The tension hits in the very opening scene. Mad Max (Tom Hardy) is hunted like an animal by a tribe of chalk-skinned warriors and haunted by the voices in his head. The two merge into an endless cry of torment. In a world wasted and controlled by power, his only instinct is for survival. His need to survive intersects with the plans of a battle-scarred woman named, perfectly, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron). She leads a flock of lovely ladies in a desperate quest across the barren landscape. They flee an impossible life for the hope of a future that glimmers in the distance like a desert mirage. Mad Max, along with his warrior captor to whom he is chained, crash into the ladies like the bass riff hitting the high notes with no time to miss a beat. They are pursued. Of course they are pursued. They are things, possessions, belongings, and their strong owner wants them back. A Need for Speed Like a good guitar shredder, the film never stops moving. They flee, they talk, they fight, they love, and they die at full speed, kicking up rooster tails of sand behind them. Men come at them, spinning in maniacal glee, dangling from arching poles, hoisting explosive spears, covered in spikes. The vehicles come at them, muscle cars souped up on tank tracks, motorcycles bristling with warriors, trucks built up like castles, semis armored like mighty ships. The weapons come at them, guns and swords, darts and spears, explosives and chains. If they stop, they die. The road behind them becomes littered with the carcasses of cars and men who could not keep the pace. Even when they pause, they don’t stop. The sense of pursuit, of speed, of the need to move hangs in the air like the dust that surrounds them. The look of the film, the style of it, becomes second nature. You feel yourself choking on the dust, fighting the heat, needing to move, to run. A Modern Epic It’s that primal. If all these words sound epic, that’s because it is. The beautiful, stylized cinematography, the gritty acting, and the relentless action work seamlessly to suck the audience into a world where there is no ambiguity, no nuance. There is only the desert with evil behind and faint hope in the distance. In a world gone mad, the mad are the sane ones. Director George Miller, also the creator, writer, director of 1979’s “Mad Max,” returns to the essence of the world he created. There are things in this movie, like the original, that do not bear inspection. Why do they never eat? In this dirty wasteland, how do the Vogue-model girls keep so white the wispy tatters of linen that try valiantly to cover their perfect bodies and so clean their smooth faces? And what is that chrome spray paint the warriors put on their teeth? None of it matters. In the hands of Miller, you realize it could be no other way. Life reduced to speed and battle, they journey on. This is the stuff of Homer in the key of Metallica. So the guitarist plays on. Rated R, the film has intense, non-stop violence that can be very gory. It also has brief, shocking, spooky images of ghost-like characters. There is no sexuality (they ain’t got time for that) or bad language. Rebecca Cusey is a movie critic based in Washington DC. She is a member of the Washington Area Film Critics Society and a voting Tomatomer Critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Follow her on Twitter @Rebecca_Cusey. Charlize Theron George Miller Mad Max Mad Max: Fury Road movie review Tom Hardy Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1463670073398-2'); }); window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({mode:'thumbs-2r', container:'taboola-below-main-column-mix', placement:'below-main-column', target_type:'mix'}); window._taboola = window._taboola || []; _taboola.push({flush:true}); 0 Comments /* * * CONFIGURATION VARIABLES: EDIT BEFORE PASTING INTO YOUR WEBPAGE * * */ var disqus_shortname = 'thefederalist23'; // required: replace example with your forum shortname /* * * DON'T EDIT BELOW THIS LINE * * */ (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })(); Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. comments powered by Disqus ]]>
(Review Source)
The Weekly Standard Staff
<img src="http://cdn.weeklystandard.biz/cache/w640-9136268dfc2bd8343638872decaa8941.jpg"/>Los Angeles It’s a beautiful day, and I’m standing in a courtyard of a private university east of L.A. surrounded by 40 teenagers, most of them desiring to become the next Internet sensation. The youngest are here for SocialStar Creator Camp, which is designed to turn them into social media superstars able to produce content that will attract adoring followers and corporate sponsors willing to pay top dollar for Internet “influencers” to promote their products. And then there’s me, the analog
(Review Source)
The Federalist Staff
On Friday on “The View,” the show that made conservative firebrand Elisabeth Hasselbeck a household name, The Blaze host Tomi Lahren declared she is pro-choice—and not in spite of her conservative views, but because of them. Lahren and the panelists discussed President Trump, Russia, wiretapping, and feminism. Despite being a vocal Trump supporter, Lahren’s comments on abortion were the most surprising: “I’m pro choice, and here’s why. I am a constitutional, y’know, someone that loves the Constitution. I’m someone that’s for limited government,” she said. “So I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. I can sit here and say that, as a Republican and I can say, you know what, I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.” At this the audience applauded and the Internet exploded. .@TomiLahren explains why she's pro-choice: "Stay out of my guns and you can stay out of my body, as well." pic.twitter.com/0kFXJ7oL9L — The View (@TheView) March 17, 2017 Rule another label out. I am NOT a "constitutional". I believe in LIFE, liberty and property. Just an old fashioned "constitutionalist." — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 17, 2017 Even Hillary Clinton didn't call pro-life conservatives hypocrites. — Kaitlyn Schallhorn (@K_Schallhorn) March 18, 2017 There is no "my truth." There is only the truth. pic.twitter.com/dDdItnPDbp — Kate Scanlon (@kgscanlon) March 18, 2017 Your Rights End Where Another Person’s Rights Begin Let’s take her arguments, such as they are, one at a time. “I’m a constitutional,” Lahren began. Sweetheart, I know those blonde locks are gorgeously real—right?—but let’s at least feign an attempt at grammar: I think you mean constitutionalist. She claims that since she believes in limited government, the government should let her do what she wants with her guns and her body. This is not only the most illogical reasoning I’ve ever heard, but stupid, even dangerous. Coming from pretty television personalities, it damages conservatism and the influence it seeks to have on the public. There are conservatives who are pro-choice, and many libertarians espouse this view, but it’s never been logical or compelling. Abortion is and always has been first and foremost a moral issue. Lahren’s statement is not only a complete misrepresentation of the Constitution and the concept of limited government but a defense of abortion that’s both implausible and immoral. The Constitution certainly dictates the United States keep a limited government. For one, the Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But that doesn’t mean people have an unlimited powers. .@TomiLahren It's not hypocritical for limited government people to call for laws against abortion. (Not trying to hate, just discussion.) pic.twitter.com/xMPNNkCv9O — (((Julie Borowski))) (@JulieBorowski) March 17, 2017 Limited government doesn’t mean no government; that would be anarchy, which culminates in a “Mad Max” scenario where the powerful rule the weak based on their desires rather than enduring principles of right and wrong that apply equally to all people. In fact, that’s precisely what legalized abortion does: enables the powerful (grownups) to prey on the weak (unborn babies those grownups created, in almost all cases in a consensual act). This kind of predatory tyranny is exactly what a constitutionally limited government that guarantees equal fundamental human rights to all is supposed to prevent. Under a system of limited government based on fundamental human rights, particularly the one guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins. When an action adversely affects another human being (i.e. ending the life of an unborn baby) society and (hopefully) the law deems it wrong or unlawful. Abortion is precisely not only about a mother’s body, as Lahren asserted, but also about the body of another human being. https://twitter.com/latinamericanrp/status/843349329456721921 Apply Lahren’s logic to any other misuse of one’s body, and it falls flat. Would Americans support a government that “stayed out of my body” on the issue of theft? The correct principle is not the unlimited power to do whatever you want with your body, which would allow for theft or assault, but to have the freedom to live your life so long as your use of that life does not involve impinging on another person’s rights. In the case of abortion, another person is present. The question is, does he or she have rights? Tomi Lahren apparently says no. That’s not constitutional; it’s anarchist, or at least a utilitarianism that says people’s rights depends on their socially determined worth. But this is all probably a little too complicated for a young lady who says she has “a short attention span” and doesn’t like to read books. Far easier just to memorize and angrily spew bumper stickers, talking points, and Internet memes. Who Is Tomi Lahren? Who is Tomi Lahren, and do her viewpoints matter? One America News Network offered Tomi her own show fresh after her college graduation because she had strong conservative views, sounded articulate, and looks attractive. “On Point with Tomi Lahren” first aired when she was 21. It wasn’t because she held advanced degrees or had vast amounts of life experience. Even she admitted she’d gone to the network looking for an internship, not to host her own show. Eventually, she moved to The Blaze to host “Tomi.” Since then, clips of Tomi’s show that typically involve a yelled monologue frequently go viral. She’s not necessarily an anomaly in the conservative world, unfortunately. With bleach-blonde hair and a penchant for wearing attire that looks more like lingerie, she’s a prettier, less-educated, slightly less unhinged but just as caustic version of Ann Coulter. We’ve seen this movie before, but some people can’t stop watching. Her savvy use of her platform to attack prominent figures and memes has prompted an invitation to “The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah and, after one appearance on Fox News, President Trump called to thank her for her “fair coverage.” Yet, as “The View’s” Sunny Hostin said to Lahren in soft-pitching her the opportunity to make headlines by skewering Lahren’s own fanbase with a triumphant smirk, if “68 percent of conservative Republicans think abortion should not be legal across the board,” what does Lahren gain from these comments? It’s certainly not credibility with her current audience, or even with the majority of Americans, which supports at least highly restricted abortion access. Why Tomi Lahren’s Views Matter Not only is her current position on abortion confusing, just three months ago, Lahren was adamantly against abortion. With her contract at The Blaze up in the air and frequent passes at Fox, this entire gambit smells of opportunism. Only 3 months ago, @TomiLahren considered an abortion to be murder, today, she branded pro life conservatives as hypocrites. #NoPrinciples pic.twitter.com/8BqoQTOyD1 — The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) March 17, 2017 Of course, people can change their minds, and Lahren is certainly entitled to shift from pro-life to pro-choice. But it doesn’t do the conservative movement any favors. Lahren wouldn’t have a show if someone didn’t watch it. She has a platform that obviously can influence men and women, particularly younger generations who identify with her. What does this teach them about logic, persuasive argument, and morality? Not only because killing innocent people is always wrong but because her logic in embracing her newfound belief is so sophistic, conservatives should expect better. This is ultimately the problem with Barbie-style talking heads with little specific expertise or experience. Lahren might have culled a fanbase for her vocal opinions and spaghetti-strapped tops, but she’s flip-flopping on important topics and opining with little heft to back up her views. It would be nice to see the Right’s public representatives armed with intelligent information, persuasive beliefs, and solid principles. You know, beauty and brains? ]]>
(Review Source)
The Federalist Staff
(”Mad Max” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Once again, with the possible exception of “The Martian,” those wacky Academy members have nominated films nearly no one has seen. Sure, if you live in Los Angeles, you may have schlepped out to see “Room,” but even there it’s not likely. Silly you, you’ve been too busy doing things like “working” and “watching the kids” and “seeing ‘Deadpool’” to take in “The Big Short.” That’s a problem, because it will come up this weekend. What with everyone desperate to not talk about Donald Trump, the Oscars will be the only safe topic of conversation at cocktail parties for the foreseeable future. Here’s a cheat sheet to help you find some talking points. Talk about Feminism This is a tad tricky because you must simultaneously celebrate the strong female performances this year while lamenting the lack of strong female roles. Women headlined “Room,” “Mad Max: Fury Road,” and “Brooklyn,” and played huge roles in “Spotlight” and “The Martian.” Out of eight nominated Best Picture movies, women had great roles in five. But that’s not a win. Nope. No way. You must tsk tsk about the lack of female roles in Hollywood. Correct talking point: “Jessica Chastain was breathtaking as the commander of the mission in ‘The Martian.’ Too bad there are no roles in Hollywood that show women can be leaders!” Luckily, this year’s movies are just chock-full of feminism. A lot of people saw “Mad Max: Fury Road” for the awesome effects, the pounding score, the pulse-racing action. But joke’s on you, goobers, because the only acceptable reason to see this movie is for the feminism. It’s a movie so feminist a man asks a woman for directions. That would be enough, of course, but that’s not all. The happy ending is that nobody gets to have sex, ever. No nookie. No whoopee. As nature intended, wise women live by themselves repeating wise things about seeds and stuff they heard from their mothers. Dirty, nasty men bounce around on poles and hit each other with things. Everyone is happy, and there will be no babies. Correct talking point: “So glad this year’s movies taught us there are more important things in life than getting it on. It’s about time we moved away from that outdated way of thinking!” Joke’s on you, goobers, because the only acceptable reason to see this movie is for the feminism. Finally, one last note on feminism. You may be interested in seeing the dresses the stars wear, but please be aware. We must watch the red carpets to catch the brilliant nuggets of wisdom the stunning starlets shout out to the significantly less-stunning press as they glide by in the crowd, glancing past to see if anyone important is nearby. These nuggets of wisdom are priceless and the point of the entire night. Even though the stars pick out dresses months ahead of the awards, have several fittings, starve themselves for weeks, and have a small army to perfect their hair, makeup, nails, and eyebrows, it is rude for the significantly less-stunning press to ask about their dresses. They must be asked about world peace or ISIS or something. They are more than just perfect bodies in dresses and ungodly amounts of jewelry, you know. Correct talking point: “Wow. Jennifer Laurence’s mind really looked amazing on the red carpet tonight. She must have been practicing calculus!” Embrace Populism This year, we are angry. No one is sure at what, exactly, but we know we are angry and we are about ready to grab pitchforks and storm the Bastille (if we knew what the Bastille was, which we don’t because education is elitist). Translate that anger into the Oscars. When someone asks who you think will win, respond that a cabal of old establishment Hollywood should not get to dictate what is the best movie. Then pick your favorite movie of the year and fight for it past all reason. Something like this: Correct Talking Point: “‘Jurassic World’ was far, far better than ‘The Revenant!’ The performance Indominous Rex gave was amazing! It changed my life! Down with the establishment!” Another Correct Talking Point: “‘Furious 7’ is the only movie that is even close to good enough to win. Amazing movie. Flawless. I laughed, I cried. You have to see the deeper meaning. Jumping a supercar between high rises in Dubai not once, but twice, is a metaphor for our Middle East foreign policy. Can’t you see it? Down with the establishment!” Plus, if you’re a “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” geek—and really, who isn’t these days?—it’s a chance to awe your listener with your encyclopedic knowledge of the Star Wars universe. Star Wars Talking Point: “…..and that is why the Best Supporting Actor Oscar should go to the guy who played the junkyard dealer who traded scraps for rations. It’s so obvious. It’s the only choice. Down with the establishment!” Heck, even pick movies that you loved from last year or a few years back. When someone counters that it is ineligible for the 2016 Oscars, counter with “How do you know ‘Spotlight’ is eligible? I heard it was made in Canada. It’s probably a Canadian movie. I could bring a lawsuit right now, challenging its eligibility! Ha!” Highlight Victims There’s been a lot of chatter this year about how, despite many fine performances by actors with pigmented skin, neither a single actor with pigmented skin nor a movie featuring actors with pigmented skin was picked for major categories. For instance, Leonardo DiCaprio is about to get an Oscar for staggering around in the snow and breathing heavy for two hours, but Idris Elba is not nominated for “Beasts of No Nation.” Seems wrong. Pigmented Americans, however, are not the only group tragically underrepresented by Hollywood. There is a large, oppressed, overlooked crowd of Americans who are never, ever given any respect. I’m talking, of course, about Unattractive Americans. This year, the SPWCJ (Society of People Without Chiseled Jawlines) is joining forces with AAWTRT (Association of Americans Whose Thighs Rub Together) to highlight the plight of Unattractive Americans. They fight for the chance to be featured on the big screen in all their hairy-backed, overbite-ridden, honky-nosed, horrifying glory. They even have their own hashtag: #OscarsSoUnrealisticallyAttractive Correct Talking Point: “I mean, why does the system favor beautiful people? I just want to have my daughter see people onscreen who represent her.” Have Your Excuse Ready Maybe you were smart and realized that while “Room” may be a transcendent story of the triumph of the human spirit, a story about holding a woman as a captive sex slave for years wasn’t likely to get you some lovin’ on date night and, because despite “Mad Max” this is still important to you, you took your wife to a nice meal and then to “Mission Impossible.” This is not something you want to admit at the cocktail party. Correct Talking Point: “We stopped to help an Unattractive American—we believe strongly in equality for them—and we were just too late to the ‘Room’ showing. It was sold out, sadly.” Whip Out Tom Hanks If, despite all these talking points, you still find yourself cornered by someone insisting on knowing what you thought of “Carol,” there’s always Tom Hanks. Everybody loves Tom Hanks. His movie “Bridge of Spies,” which you did not see, is nominated for Best Picture. But it does not matter if you did not see it, because Tom Hanks is a national treasure and we don’t have to actually see the movie to know that. He is so tremendously decent, so relentlessly kind, so representative of all that we imagine is best about ourselves, that he can head off any awkward conversation. No-Fail Talking Point: “Hey, how about that Tom Hanks? He’s really great, right? Life is like a bowl of chocolates, right? Wilson!” ]]>
(Review Source)
Mad Max 2
Jay Dyer


By: Jay Dyer Much furor has been raised over Imperator Furiosa, Charlize Theron’s “strong woman” figure in the latest Mad Max reboot: I expected some to retitle it Mad MaxiPad.  Mad Max:...

(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
Works and Days Where’s Mel Gibson When You Need Him?George Miller’s 1981 post-apocalyptic film The Road Warrior envisioned an impoverished world of the future. Tribal groups fought over what remained of a destroyed Western world of law, technology, and mass production. Survival went to the fittest -- or at least those who could best scrounge together the artifacts of a long gone society somewhat resembling the present West.In the case of the Australian film, the culprit for the detribalization of the Outback was some sort of global war or perhaps nuclear holocaust that had destroyed the social fabric. Survivors were left with a memory of modern appetites but without the ability to reproduce the means to satisfy them:  in short, a sort of Procopius’s description of Gothic Italy circa AD 540.Our VersionSometimes, and in some places, in California I think we have nearly descended into Miller’s dark vision -- especially the juxtaposition of occasional high technology with premodern notions of law and security. The state deficit is at $16 billion. Stockton went bankrupt; Fresno is rumored to be next. Unemployment stays over 10% and in the Central Valley is more like 15%. Seven out of the last eleven new Californians went on Medicaid, which is about broke. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California. In many areas, 40% of Central Valley high school students do not graduate -- and do not work, if the latest crisis in finding $10 an hour agricultural workers is any indication. And so on.Our culprit out here was not the Bomb (and remember, Hiroshima looks a lot better today than does Detroit, despite the inverse in 1945). The condition is instead brought on by a perfect storm of events that have shred the veneer of sophisticated civilization. Add up the causes. One was the destruction of the California rural middle class. Manufacturing jobs, small family farms, and new businesses disappeared due to globalization, high taxes, and new regulations. A pyramidal society followed of a few absentee land barons and corporate grandees, and a mass of those on entitlements or working for government or employed at low-skilled service jobs. The guy with a viable 60 acres of almonds ceased to exist.Illegal immigration did its share. No society can successfully absorb some 6-7 million illegal aliens, in less than two decades, the vast majority without English, legality, or education from the poorer provinces of Mexico, the arrivals subsidized by state entitlements while sending billions in remittances back to Mexico -- all in a politicized climate where dissent is demonized as racism. This state of affairs is especially true when the host has given up on assimilation, integration, the melting pot, and basic requirements of lawful citizenship.Terrible governance was also a culprit, in the sense that the state worked like a lottery: those lucky enough by hook or by crook to get a state job thereby landed a bonanza of high wages, good benefits, no accountability, and rich pensions that eventually almost broke the larger and less well-compensated general society. When I see hordes of Highway Patrolmen writing tickets in a way they did not before 2008, I assume that these are revenue-based, not safety-based, protocols -- a little added fiscal insurance that pensions and benefits will not be cut.A coarsening of popular culture -- a nationwide phenomenon -- was intensified, as it always is, in California. The internet, video games, and modern pop culture translated into a generation of youth that did not know the value of hard work or a weekend hike in the Sierra. They didn't learn  how to open a good history book or poem, much less acquire even basic skills such as mowing the lawn or hammering a nail. But California’s Generation X did know that they were "somebody" whom teachers and officials dared not reprimand, punish, prosecute, or otherwise pass judgment on for their anti-social behavior. Add all that up with a whiny, pampered, influential elite on the coast that was more worried about wind power, gay marriage, ending plastic bags in the grocery stores -- and, well, you get the present-day Road Warrior culture of California. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/california-the-road-warrior-is-here/ previous Page 1 of 4 next   ]]>
(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
(”Mad Max 2” is briefly mentioned in this.)
Ed Driscoll Both  J.E. Dyer of Hot Air, and Roger L. Simon, our own Maximum Pajamahadeen, reached similar conclusions after watching the rock concert-esque spectacle of the London Olympics' opening ceremonies. First up, after offering kudos to the Queen, Daniel Craig, Danny Boyle, Kenneth Branagh, Rowan Atkinson, and Paul McCartney, Roger writes, “And yet. And yet:”Moving as this most artistically inspired of all Olympics opening ceremonies was, were we watching the end of something — and I am not talking about the end of Bob Costas. How much longer can he go on? (How much Botox is there in the world?)Were (are) we watching the end of the world as we have known it?I’m not saying this is 1936 all over again, even though then, as now, the world was in economic crisis. Those Olympics were in Berlin, being filmed by Leni Riefenstahl, a director even greater than Danny Boyle, but plying her art at the behest of one of the most evil people of all time.That is not the case here. But there is still something ineffably sad, at least to me. It’s hard to be optimistic this Olympic year. These are ominous times indeed, not a moment for celebration.At Hot Air,  J.E. Dyer dubs the opening ceremonies "the death throes of a civilization:"Watching the ceremony last night, I had a profound sense of sadness for the hollow revelry.  There was no dignified memorializing of the greatness, uniqueness, and courage of Britain’s past.  There was “irreverent, idiosyncratic” entertainment, and a very long segment of writhing self-abasement before the shibboleth of socialized medicine.We seemed to be looking last night at a moment frozen in time before a great upheaval, like the last days of lingering sunlight before World War I.  A civilization based on entertainment and ritual political worship is headed for a fall.  But then, a civilization that singles out some humans, like Israeli Jews, to show less care for – less solidarity with – is a weak and unsustainable one.  Nothing else will go right with it.Britain is not alone in her shallow, artistic commemorations of a dying culture.  Western Europe’s official vision of itself largely boils down to that.  I believe there are still many individuals in Europe – as distinct from the ruling precincts of political correctness and utopianism – who have the courage to forge a different future.  But as a useful vehicle for what needs to be done, the continent’s official organizations, its governments and agencies, are beyond their expiration date.  Too many of them do not serve the people now, but only indenture and discourage them.Such a situation cannot endure.  No amount of artistic entertainment can make fear, loss of purpose, and politically correct weakness noble or inspiring, much less invincible.  The post-liberal culture and political idea of Europe are not in a position to triumph today.  They are not even in a position to survive.How grim will the future be? And when will it arrive? How 'bout right now, according to our own Victor Davis Hanson. VDH writes that post-apocalyptic California would make the perfect giant location setting for director George Miller's next Road Warrior movie:Sometimes, and in some places, in California I think we have nearly descended into Miller’s dark vision — especially the juxtaposition of occasional high technology with premodern notions of law and security. The state deficit is at $16 billion. Stockton went bankrupt; Fresno is rumored to be next. Unemployment stays over 10% and in the Central Valley is more like 15%. Seven out of the last eleven new Californians went on Medicaid, which is about broke. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California. In many areas, 40% of Central Valley high school students do not graduate — and do not work, if the latest crisis in finding $10 an hour agricultural workers is any indication. And so on.Our culprit out here was not the Bomb (and remember, Hiroshima looks a lot better today than does Detroit, despite the inverse in 1945). The condition is instead brought on by a perfect storm of events that have shred the veneer of sophisticated civilization. Add up the causes. One was the destruction of the California rural middle class. Manufacturing jobs, small family farms, and new businesses disappeared due to globalization, high taxes, and new regulations. A pyramidal society followed of a few absentee land barons and corporate grandees, and a mass of those on entitlements or working for government or employed at low-skilled service jobs. The guy with a viable 60 acres of almonds ceased to exist.Illegal immigration did its share. No society can successfully absorb some 6-7 million illegal aliens, in less than two decades, the vast majority without English, legality, or education from the poorer provinces of Mexico, the arrivals subsidized by state entitlements while sending billions in remittances back to Mexico — all in a politicized climate where dissent is demonized as racism. This state of affairs is especially true when the host has given up on assimilation, integration, the melting pot, and basic requirements of lawful citizenship.Terrible governance was also a culprit, in the sense that the state worked like a lottery: those lucky enough by hook or by crook to get a state job thereby landed a bonanza of high wages, good benefits, no accountability, and rich pensions that eventually almost broke the larger and less well-compensated general society. When I see hordes of Highway Patrolmen writing tickets in a way they did not before 2008, I assume that these are revenue-based, not safety-based, protocols — a little added fiscal insurance that pensions and benefits will not be cut.A coarsening of popular culture — a nationwide phenomenon — was intensified, as it always is, in California. The internet, video games, and modern pop culture translated into a generation of youth that did not know the value of hard work or a weekend hike in the Sierra. They didn’t learn  how to open a good history book or poem, much less acquire even basic skills such as mowing the lawn or hammering a nail. But California’s Generation X did know that they were “somebody” whom teachers and officials dared not reprimand, punish, prosecute, or otherwise pass judgment on for their anti-social behavior. Add all that up with a whiny, pampered, influential elite on the coast that was more worried about wind power, gay marriage, ending plastic bags in the grocery stores — and, well, you get the present-day Road Warrior culture of California.As Mark Steyn wrote last year in After America:Look around you. From now on, it gets worse. In ten years’ time, there will be no American Dream, any more than there’s a Greek or Portuguese Dream. In twenty, you’ll be living the American Nightmare, with large tracts of the country reduced to the favelas of Latin America, the rich fleeing for Bermuda or New Zealand or wherever on the planet they can buy a little time, and the rest trapped in the impoverished, violent, diseased ruins of utopian vanity.Forget high-speed rail; what's Steyn's describing is what's really coming down the tracks at accelerating speeds in California. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/7/30/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it-2/ ]]>
(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
Ed Driscoll As Tina Turner sang over a quarter century ago, all we want is life beyond the Thunderdome -- which is the analogy Walter Russell Mead uses to describe dystopian 21st century California:Things are getting worse in San Bernardino. The city filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, but its financial situation has continued to deteriorate. And now with what promises to be a heated court battle over payments to the state pension fund in the offing, further cuts are likely.Things are getting so bad that at a recent city council meeting, the city attorney advised residents to “lock their doors and load their guns” because the city could no longer afford to keep up a strong enough police force. CBS News reports:Back in late July, Fresno resident Victor Davis Hanson described his home state as being the equivalent of The Road Warrior.  Only a few short months later, have we already "progressed" to living out that film's sequel?George Miller’s 1981 post-apocalyptic film The Road Warrior envisioned an impoverished world of the future. Tribal groups fought over what remained of a destroyed Western world of law, technology, and mass production. Survival went to the fittest — or at least those who could best scrounge together the artifacts of a long gone society somewhat resembling the present West.In the case of the Australian film, the culprit for the detribalization of the Outback was some sort of global war or perhaps nuclear holocaust that had destroyed the social fabric. Survivors were left with a memory of modern appetites but without the ability to reproduce the means to satisfy them:  in short, a sort of Procopius’s description of Gothic Italy circa AD 540.Our VersionSometimes, and in some places, in California I think we have nearly descended into Miller’s dark vision — especially the juxtaposition of occasional high technology with premodern notions of law and security. The state deficit is at $16 billion. Stockton went bankrupt; Fresno is rumored to be next. Unemployment stays over 10% and in the Central Valley is more like 15%. Seven out of the last eleven new Californians went on Medicaid, which is about broke. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California. In many areas, 40% of Central Valley high school students do not graduate — and do not work, if the latest crisis in finding $10 an hour agricultural workers is any indication. And so on.Our culprit out here was not the Bomb (and remember, Hiroshima looks a lot better today than does Detroit, despite the inverse in 1945). The condition is instead brought on by a perfect storm of events that have shred the veneer of sophisticated civilization. Add up the causes. One was the destruction of the California rural middle class. Manufacturing jobs, small family farms, and new businesses disappeared due to globalization, high taxes, and new regulations. A pyramidal society followed of a few absentee land barons and corporate grandees, and a mass of those on entitlements or working for government or employed at low-skilled service jobs. The guy with a viable 60 acres of almonds ceased to exist.Earlier today, Hugh Hewitt had on author Laer Pearce. His new book Crazifornia: Tales from the Tarnished State - How California is Destroying Itself and Why it Matters to America sounds like an intriguing look into America's most anticipated fiscal collapse. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/12/4/we-dont-need-another-hero/ ]]>
(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
(”Mad Max 2” is briefly mentioned in this.)
PJ Media One of the more prominent among the manifold idiocies of the environmental left is the idea that oil is evil. Recently, according to a press release from the Western Energy Alliance, a non-profit trade association representing more than 450 companies engaged in exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West, more than 400 groups converged on the White House to demand we keep fossil fuels in the ground.They did this, of course, while waving signs made of plastic and having driven or flown in fossil fuel-powered vehicles to Washington. And probably while drinking from plastic or aluminum water bottles, or while sipping an extra-soy-macchiato latte, all of which require fossil fuels to produce. These are the same sorts who tried to block offshore drilling in the Arctic by blockading a harbor with kayaks and canoes made of plastic.To shine light on the idiocy, this week the WEA challenged people who insist that oil is evil to live a full seven days without using fossil fuels. To any who would accept the challenge, they would find this is impossible.Said WEA president Tim Wigley:Environmental groups have actively promoted ending fossil fuel consumption. The problem is the average person doesn’t understand where things come from....Taking these groups at their word, we created the Challenge to show that oil and natural gas products are not easily dispensable. In fact, it’s quite the contrary; fossil fuels make modern living possible. They power our economy and provide the basic feedstock used to manufacture smartphones, clothing and medicine and make our world safer, healthier and more convenient.Indeed, the world the environmentalists imagine best describes a post-apocalyptic movie. Said Gene Koprowski, director of marketing for the Heartland Institute:This idea of going without fossil fuels for a week -- wasn’t that the premise of the Mad Max series of films, a post-apocalyptic world where fossil fuel was scarce to non-existent?Think life without a car to drive or fuel to heat your home is pleasant? This is just dumb. It’s not pleasant. It is like living after the apocalypse.There are electric cars available from Tesla and other manufacturers today. But to generate power for the batteries for these cars, the owners hook up the car to an electrical outlet ... and rely on energy churned out by the coal-burning power plant down the way.They can’t escape from fossil fuels, these electric car makers. There are lab-based alternatives to fossil fuels for the production of plastics and fibers, etc., but to my knowledge, these are not commercially viable presently.Nearly everything we wear, eat, or use has fossil fuels in the supply chain somewhere. Even the carpets most of us walk on are made of synthetic fibers. To most of the environmental left, food magically appears in the grocery store,; iPhones and other modern conveniences are conjured by Technology Gnomes in the middle of the night, rather than having been manufactured using toxic processes.Perhaps the problem is that environmentalists can't see the overseas plants which make their gadgets -- but they can see the oil rigs. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/blog/oil-trade-group-challenges-environmentalists-enough-talk-try-actually-living-without-fossil-fuels/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
(Review Source)
VJ Morton
(”Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is briefly mentioned in this.)
gibsonbraveheart.jpg

A good piece in the Village Voice (really)

Thanks, Phil (are you part of an Experiment by the way?) for pointing me to a piece by Jessica Winter on Mel Gibson’s filmography. As you said in the comment field, it’s kinda dumb when discussing THE PASSION OF CHRIST or religion as such. I had to grit my teeth through the nonsense phrase “fundamentalist Catholic” and the imputation of anti-Semitism on the “Traditionalist Catholic” movement (to which the relationship of Gibson himself, rather than his father, is not crystal-clear in any event. Certainly Mel has said some interesting things, but to my knowledge, he’s never publicly declared himself a Sedevacantist, called the Second Vatican Council invalid, or even spoken of his religious beliefs in detail at all).

But when Winter cuts the crap and gets down to discussing Gibson’s movies, she is quite intriguing. If it hadn’t been for SIGNS or BRAVEHEART, I would have been inclined to pooh-pooh the theory of Mel as Christ figure. After all, Jesus is only the most influential figure in Western history. The kinds of images of Christ that Winter analogizes to moments in Gibson’s filmography have centuries of Western iconography or language (“crucified” can now mean just “persecuted unjustly”) behind them, and moviemakers of every variety have drawn on various pieces of them to illustrate images of suffering or “holiness” (first example to pop into my head: Oliver Stone’s PLATOON). And to her credit, Winter recognizes that — there’s a tradition behind whatever gore will be in THE PASSION OF CHRIST that the LETHAL WEAPON movies don’t. But the very lack of context would push me toward the conclusion that it was just writers, directors and actors just using a quickly-available concept without thinking it through (like the superfluous “Death of Marat” shot in ROAD TO PERDITION).

But those two films do make it seem like Gibson’s been leading toward this. I liked SIGNS quite a bit (and a film about a priest regaining his faith fits my own life’s trajectory as a revert), though I preferred it more as a straightforward creepy Twilight Zone episode rather than as Christian theology. It’s pretty threadbare on those latter terms, basically a God of the Gaps. Nothing in SIGNS committed the film to any conception of metaphysical truth. But viewing it as religious psychology, as Winter does, makes it more about how “a man who’s lost his faith in God is as a petulant child who hasn’t gotten his way.”

The execution of Wallace in BRAVEHEART referenced the Crucifixion 100 ways to Sunday. Check out the first picture on the Voice article, which is as clear a Crucifixion reference as it gets, in contrast to say, the pictures from LETHAL WEAPON (which looks like an S&M club), from MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (which looks more like a Hindu or Muslim funeral, than a Christian or Jewish one), or from PAYBACK (a reference to RAGING BULL or 1,001 other boxing movies). People who have seen THE PASSION OF CHRIST said the violence reminded them of BRAVEHEART, and certainly secular nationalisms, Scottish or otherwise, have tended to try to latch onto a martyr figure. When I was learning Scottish history as a boy, though, Robert the Bruce and his final victory at Bannockburn got a lot more press time than William Wallace and the defeat at Falkirk; Wallace’s execution was mentioned, but not gone into detail, though I was only a wee lad at the time. In other words, Gibson was pouring Scottish history into a Christian template with Wallace as Jesus.

Advertisement
Advertisements
Report this ad
Report this ad

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

November 10, 2003 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

(Review Source)
Jay Dyer


By: Jay Dyer Much furor has been raised over Imperator Furiosa, Charlize Theron’s “strong woman” figure in the latest Mad Max reboot: I expected some to retitle it Mad MaxiPad.  Mad Max:...

(Review Source)
Jay Dyer


By: Jay As with many 80s films I grew up with, they seemed quite innocuous on the surface level, but as you mature, you are able to reflect on the...

(Review Source)
PJ Media Staff
(”Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is briefly mentioned in this.)
PJ Media One of the more prominent among the manifold idiocies of the environmental left is the idea that oil is evil. Recently, according to a press release from the Western Energy Alliance, a non-profit trade association representing more than 450 companies engaged in exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the West, more than 400 groups converged on the White House to demand we keep fossil fuels in the ground.They did this, of course, while waving signs made of plastic and having driven or flown in fossil fuel-powered vehicles to Washington. And probably while drinking from plastic or aluminum water bottles, or while sipping an extra-soy-macchiato latte, all of which require fossil fuels to produce. These are the same sorts who tried to block offshore drilling in the Arctic by blockading a harbor with kayaks and canoes made of plastic.To shine light on the idiocy, this week the WEA challenged people who insist that oil is evil to live a full seven days without using fossil fuels. To any who would accept the challenge, they would find this is impossible.Said WEA president Tim Wigley:Environmental groups have actively promoted ending fossil fuel consumption. The problem is the average person doesn’t understand where things come from....Taking these groups at their word, we created the Challenge to show that oil and natural gas products are not easily dispensable. In fact, it’s quite the contrary; fossil fuels make modern living possible. They power our economy and provide the basic feedstock used to manufacture smartphones, clothing and medicine and make our world safer, healthier and more convenient.Indeed, the world the environmentalists imagine best describes a post-apocalyptic movie. Said Gene Koprowski, director of marketing for the Heartland Institute:This idea of going without fossil fuels for a week -- wasn’t that the premise of the Mad Max series of films, a post-apocalyptic world where fossil fuel was scarce to non-existent?Think life without a car to drive or fuel to heat your home is pleasant? This is just dumb. It’s not pleasant. It is like living after the apocalypse.There are electric cars available from Tesla and other manufacturers today. But to generate power for the batteries for these cars, the owners hook up the car to an electrical outlet ... and rely on energy churned out by the coal-burning power plant down the way.They can’t escape from fossil fuels, these electric car makers. There are lab-based alternatives to fossil fuels for the production of plastics and fibers, etc., but to my knowledge, these are not commercially viable presently.Nearly everything we wear, eat, or use has fossil fuels in the supply chain somewhere. Even the carpets most of us walk on are made of synthetic fibers. To most of the environmental left, food magically appears in the grocery store,; iPhones and other modern conveniences are conjured by Technology Gnomes in the middle of the night, rather than having been manufactured using toxic processes.Perhaps the problem is that environmentalists can't see the overseas plants which make their gadgets -- but they can see the oil rigs. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/blog/oil-trade-group-challenges-environmentalists-enough-talk-try-actually-living-without-fossil-fuels/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
(Review Source)
John Nolte
(”Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is briefly mentioned in this.)
With 37 reviews in, director George Miller’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” sits at an impressive 97% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Many of the reviews are outright raves and make clear that after four decades as a filmmaker, Miller went old school to make the action genre once again feel fresh and vital. “Fury Road’s”  action sequences go back to the future by actually respecting the idea of spatial logic. Better still, there is almost no CGI. Gee, what a concept. The fourquel, which hits theatres Friday, is supposed to launch a brand new franchise. Star Tom Hardy, who steps in for Mel Gibson as Max Rockatansky (aka Mad Max aka The Man with No Name aka The Road Warrior), is attached to three more films. This is remarkable for a number of reasons. To begin with, it has been a full 30 years since the last “Mad Max” (1985’s “Thunderdome”). On top of that, Miller is 70 years of age. Most directors are past their prime at that age, especially when it comes to action films. And then there’s the not-small detail that not a single one of the previous “Mad Max” films were huge hits here in America. “Mad
(Review Source)
John Nolte
(”Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” is briefly mentioned in this.)
With 37 reviews in, director George Miller’s “Mad Max: Fury Road” sits at an impressive 97% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Many of the reviews are outright raves and make clear that after four decades as a filmmaker, Miller went old school to make the action genre once again feel fresh and vital. “Fury Road’s”  action sequences go back to the future by actually respecting the idea of spatial logic. Better still, there is almost no CGI. Gee, what a concept. The fourquel, which hits theatres Friday, is supposed to launch a brand new franchise. Star Tom Hardy, who steps in for Mel Gibson as Max Rockatansky (aka Mad Max aka The Man with No Name aka The Road Warrior), is attached to three more films. This is remarkable for a number of reasons. To begin with, it has been a full 30 years since the last “Mad Max” (1985’s “Thunderdome”). On top of that, Miller is 70 years of age. Most directors are past their prime at that age, especially when it comes to action films. And then there’s the not-small detail that not a single one of the previous “Mad Max” films were huge hits here in America. “Mad
(Review Source)