Search
Search results
Numbers League
Education and Games
App
Numbers League is made for ages 5 to Adult. "My kids beg to play this game." -GeekDad, Wired.com...
Rescued By The Alpha (Alaskan Wolf Alliance #1)
10.0
Rate It
Book
M/M Shifter Mpreg Romance. When wishing for a new life, Elam finds out the hard way that he...
Tang Garden
Tabletop Game
The Tang dynasty was considered the first golden age of the classical and now iconic Chinese...
BoardGames 2018Games ZenGames GardenGames
7 Wonders Duel
7.9
Rate It
Tabletop Game
One of the most celebrated games in the world can now be experienced in a two-player arena. 7...
BoardGames 2PlayerGames
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Just One Look in Books
Aug 12, 2021
A slightly bland thriller
After an incident at the law firm where she works, Cassie Woodson finds herself temping. She's reviewing correspondence for a fraud case--several tiers removed from her life as a lawyer. While going through the tedious emails, she discovers a series of exchanges between one of the firm partners, Forest Watts, and his wife Annabelle. Cassie can't help but read them, fixating on the way Forest seems to love and adore his wife. But when she finds a way to "accidentally" meet Forest, her fixation with the Watts turns into a full blown obsession.
"He has no idea that I have access to every corner of his life. Even the dusty ones."
This was a perfectly fine thriller, though I found it a little bland. I think it's because I'm so over unreliable alcoholic narrators. For me, that trope is just done. I lose sympathy for the protagonist at that point and just stop caring. Cassie is just an insane train wreck of a character. The whole book felt like watching one, honestly. The premise here is that she's abandoned by her mother at a young age, hence making her unstable and leading to a series of incidents (including the one where she came unglued at her law firm). But I could never quite buy why she became so obsessed with Forest Watts and his wife.
"Eyes aren't the windows to the soul. Emails are."
Most of the book focuses on Cassie's preoccupation with Forest--starting with the emails and then branching out into real life. The girl is committed, I will give you that. She creates a binder on the Watts and everything. If only she was that dedicated to something more productive. There's also a subplot with her temp co-worker, Dalton. Then with about 10 to 15% of the book left, the plot takes a complete turn and things get more exciting. However, nothing that happened previously really seemed to gel with that plot twist, so I found it all a little odd. It was a strange, out of left field turn.
Overall, I found this book interesting enough that I kept reading, so I'm still giving it 3 stars. But it was a strange ride, to say the least. Others liked it more than me, so take my review with a grain of salt.
I received a copy of this book from Random House - Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"He has no idea that I have access to every corner of his life. Even the dusty ones."
This was a perfectly fine thriller, though I found it a little bland. I think it's because I'm so over unreliable alcoholic narrators. For me, that trope is just done. I lose sympathy for the protagonist at that point and just stop caring. Cassie is just an insane train wreck of a character. The whole book felt like watching one, honestly. The premise here is that she's abandoned by her mother at a young age, hence making her unstable and leading to a series of incidents (including the one where she came unglued at her law firm). But I could never quite buy why she became so obsessed with Forest Watts and his wife.
"Eyes aren't the windows to the soul. Emails are."
Most of the book focuses on Cassie's preoccupation with Forest--starting with the emails and then branching out into real life. The girl is committed, I will give you that. She creates a binder on the Watts and everything. If only she was that dedicated to something more productive. There's also a subplot with her temp co-worker, Dalton. Then with about 10 to 15% of the book left, the plot takes a complete turn and things get more exciting. However, nothing that happened previously really seemed to gel with that plot twist, so I found it all a little odd. It was a strange, out of left field turn.
Overall, I found this book interesting enough that I kept reading, so I'm still giving it 3 stars. But it was a strange ride, to say the least. Others liked it more than me, so take my review with a grain of salt.
I received a copy of this book from Random House - Ballantine and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated DNA Demons N Angels in Books
Dec 3, 2021
well written but hard work in places
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
There comes along from time to time, a book that really pushes my ability to write a coherent review. This is such a book.
I could not see, or I had a picture in my mind that turned out to be so very wrong, where this was going for a long time. As I neared the end, it became clear that it would end round about when Evie gave birth. And I wasn't sure HOW it was gonna end, not til I ran out of book.
And herein lies my problem with this book.
I read it, I finished it. At NO point did I feel the need to dump it, even when it became clear only Evie is given a voice, it's her story after all. I enjoyed reading it, I really did. And then it finished! And I'm left kind of "well how do I write a review?!"
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a very well written book. Hard work in places, but very good. It's original, I can honestly say I've never read such a book. It has many twists, some I saw coming, and some not so much. It led me on a merry dance across the States, and across the whole supporting cast, some of whom held my interest a little more than Evie in places.
Evie did well to fully grasp her situation, once Lucas told her what he was. Lucas was, in my opinion, a little too much too fast and I wanted to punch him a time or two! (please don't hate me, but I did!)
I just didn't get the whole point of it! A lot of things, actually, made me think, once I'd finished it. Made me question why that bit was even in the story. I'm not going to say which bits, because that's spoilers, though.
So, for originality and great writing, I'm giving it 4 stars, but taking one off, because I really would liked to have heard from Lucas, and maybe Melisa and maybe even Ken, when he's doing his research.
I think this will probably be one of "THOSE" books, you know? One that have a gazillion 5-star reviews, but you can't see what the fuss was about, and I'm sorry for that, because it was well written.
3 good solid stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
There comes along from time to time, a book that really pushes my ability to write a coherent review. This is such a book.
I could not see, or I had a picture in my mind that turned out to be so very wrong, where this was going for a long time. As I neared the end, it became clear that it would end round about when Evie gave birth. And I wasn't sure HOW it was gonna end, not til I ran out of book.
And herein lies my problem with this book.
I read it, I finished it. At NO point did I feel the need to dump it, even when it became clear only Evie is given a voice, it's her story after all. I enjoyed reading it, I really did. And then it finished! And I'm left kind of "well how do I write a review?!"
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a very well written book. Hard work in places, but very good. It's original, I can honestly say I've never read such a book. It has many twists, some I saw coming, and some not so much. It led me on a merry dance across the States, and across the whole supporting cast, some of whom held my interest a little more than Evie in places.
Evie did well to fully grasp her situation, once Lucas told her what he was. Lucas was, in my opinion, a little too much too fast and I wanted to punch him a time or two! (please don't hate me, but I did!)
I just didn't get the whole point of it! A lot of things, actually, made me think, once I'd finished it. Made me question why that bit was even in the story. I'm not going to say which bits, because that's spoilers, though.
So, for originality and great writing, I'm giving it 4 stars, but taking one off, because I really would liked to have heard from Lucas, and maybe Melisa and maybe even Ken, when he's doing his research.
I think this will probably be one of "THOSE" books, you know? One that have a gazillion 5-star reviews, but you can't see what the fuss was about, and I'm sorry for that, because it was well written.
3 good solid stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Whale (2022) in Movies
Mar 5, 2023
Raw and Honest
Give Brendan Fraser the Oscar already.
Hollywood loves a comeback story and the return of Fraser to the Hollywood "A" list is complete with his heart-wrenching, honest turn in Darren Aronofsky's THE WHALE. It is the type of comeback that is deserving of all the accolades and awards that has come his way.
Directed, with restraint not normally associated with Aronofsky, THE WHALE tells the tale of a College Professor who drowns his feelings in food. The film, based on the play (and screenplay) by Samuel D. Hunter follows this Professor, Charlie (Brendan Fraser of THE MUMMY fame) as he seeks to make amends with his estranged daughter as his obesity starts to take it's toll.
Since this is based on a stage play, most of the film takes place inside Charlie's apartment and the number of characters in this film are limited - and all of them hit their mark very well, thanks to the Best Direction that Aronofsky has ever achieved. He limits his usual histrionics, letting the camera focus on the faces and emotions of his characters, keeping movement to a minimum and engrossing the audience in the punch that these emotions provide. It is a shame that he was not Nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is masterful.
Because of this - and the powerful script by Hunter - the cast of this film shines brightly. From Samantha Morton (MINORITY REPORT) to Ty Simpkins (JURASSIC WORLD) to Sadie Sink (Max Mayfield in Netflix' STRANGER THINGS), Aronofsky draws strong, raw and HONEST performances that elevate as each interact with each other.
Hong Chau (giving her 2nd straight strong performance following her work in the under-rated and under-appreciated THE MENU) is also Oscar Nominated (for Supporting Actress) for her work as Charlie's caregiver. It is a subtle, loving, emotional performance that touches the heart and her Oscar nomination is well deserved.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is Fraser's and he commands it from start to finish. Sure, the "fat suit" he is wearing that gives him the appearance of a 400 lb (+) obese man is jarring, but it is the raw emotions - rage, fear, sadness, hate, self-loathing and love - that Fraser is able to eminate through that wall of prosthetics that is truly astonishing. It is the performance of a career and one that will win him the Oscar.
Welcome back, Brendan Fraser, the movies missed you.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hollywood loves a comeback story and the return of Fraser to the Hollywood "A" list is complete with his heart-wrenching, honest turn in Darren Aronofsky's THE WHALE. It is the type of comeback that is deserving of all the accolades and awards that has come his way.
Directed, with restraint not normally associated with Aronofsky, THE WHALE tells the tale of a College Professor who drowns his feelings in food. The film, based on the play (and screenplay) by Samuel D. Hunter follows this Professor, Charlie (Brendan Fraser of THE MUMMY fame) as he seeks to make amends with his estranged daughter as his obesity starts to take it's toll.
Since this is based on a stage play, most of the film takes place inside Charlie's apartment and the number of characters in this film are limited - and all of them hit their mark very well, thanks to the Best Direction that Aronofsky has ever achieved. He limits his usual histrionics, letting the camera focus on the faces and emotions of his characters, keeping movement to a minimum and engrossing the audience in the punch that these emotions provide. It is a shame that he was not Nominated for an Oscar for his work here, it is masterful.
Because of this - and the powerful script by Hunter - the cast of this film shines brightly. From Samantha Morton (MINORITY REPORT) to Ty Simpkins (JURASSIC WORLD) to Sadie Sink (Max Mayfield in Netflix' STRANGER THINGS), Aronofsky draws strong, raw and HONEST performances that elevate as each interact with each other.
Hong Chau (giving her 2nd straight strong performance following her work in the under-rated and under-appreciated THE MENU) is also Oscar Nominated (for Supporting Actress) for her work as Charlie's caregiver. It is a subtle, loving, emotional performance that touches the heart and her Oscar nomination is well deserved.
But, make no mistake about it, this film is Fraser's and he commands it from start to finish. Sure, the "fat suit" he is wearing that gives him the appearance of a 400 lb (+) obese man is jarring, but it is the raw emotions - rage, fear, sadness, hate, self-loathing and love - that Fraser is able to eminate through that wall of prosthetics that is truly astonishing. It is the performance of a career and one that will win him the Oscar.
Welcome back, Brendan Fraser, the movies missed you.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Haunting in Venice (2023) in Movies
Sep 30, 2023
Well Crafted
Famed Agatha Christie Belgian Sleuth Hercule Poirot is a familiar figure on the screen - both large and small. He has been played numerous times by numerous performers, each one riffing on the famed mustached Detective and his “little grey cells” and and any performer who takes on this character must bear the weight of those who played the role before him.
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
In A HAUNTING IN VENICE, Kenneth Branagh’s 3rd go around as Poirot, Branagh has finally shaken off the Ghosts of Poirot’s Past and has made the part his own.
Based on the 1969 novel by Agatha Christie, HALLOWE’EN PARTY, Branagh (who also directed the film) imbues horror elements and the macabre to the whoddunit detective genre - largely to positive results.
As stated above, Branagh has finally made this version of Hercule Poirot his own, giving the detective (who, at the beginning of this film/novel, is in self-imposed retirement) some self-doubt and self-retrospection which helps drive the story, plot and intrigue of the story.
Branagh has populated this murder-mystery with strong performers from recent Oscar-winner Michelle Yeoh (EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE) to Jamie Dornan (Branagh’s BELFAST) to YELLOWSTONE’s Kelly Reilly. Each brings mystery and star power to their roles.
Special notice needs to be made of Comedienne Tina Fey who is tackling her first non-comedic role and largely sticks the landing. As a friend of the Detective from NYC, Fey more than holds her own in the many, many scenes she shares with Branagh. As is often the case with comediennes, there is more to be mined in Fey’s acting chops and here’s hoping she dives deeper into more serious roles.
Director Branagh smartly uses the setting and mood of this piece to craft a film experience that is eerie, spooky and claustrophobic. While it is being billed as a HORROR film, it is not. It is a tense, taught, macabre film, filled with fish-eye lens and blurred-focus shots, which makes the set design and cinematography complimentary to the story.
Which is important for this is, in the end, a drawing room murder-mystery and the audience’s enjoyment of this film will be in direct alignment with how the mystery plays out…and this mystery plays out well (enough). What it lacks in surprises, it more than makes up for in mood, atmosphere and character
And that makes for a very entertaining time at the Cinema.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) in Movies
Jun 5, 2017
The creations of the pirate lore brought to life (3 more)
Original Cast return for the sequel
The addition of new incredible casting choices such as Bill Nighy
It maintains the franchises humour in new ways
Giving Pirate Lore a new image
Since I have reviewed the first, fourth and fifth films of this franchise, I thought it to be necessary for me to review the second and third installments as well.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mad Max (1979) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Decent
Guilty confession: Typically when I watch a "classic" or a film I've really been looking forward to, I go into it expecting to like it. In other words, the film is already ahead of the curve when it comes to my grading scale. It has to do a lot to let me down. I hate to say it, but Mad Max? It let me down. Not in the sense that it was bad, but rather in the sense that I was hoping for more.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.
Max is a police officer in a post-apocalyptic world where biker gangs rule the road. After his partner is brutally burned by one of the most dangerous gangs, Max decides to retire but a terrible turn of events sucks him right back in.
The film got off to a slow start for me. I was confused by what was happening and why it was happening. It's not a good sign when I have to jump on to Wikipedia to clarify things. Unfortunately things never quite bounced back for me after that. I spent a good majority of the film thinking, "What are the stakes for Max? Why should I care about his character?" You're not really given a ton of insight into who he is and why he's a hero you want to root for. Read to kids in the hospital. Pull a cat out of a tree. Do something! Give me a reason to care. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
Despite my issues with the film, Mad Max is carried by a solid performance from Gibson. Visceral rage just oozes from the man as he goes out for his revenge. He's got that look, one we've seen in many films before. A look that says, "I'm crazy and I want you to know it." His passion in the role is a shining spot.
The film also benefits from solid world-building. Though you're only given a small taste, it's all you need to see. The road is what's important, the heartbeat of the film. You witness it in the attention to detail behind the cars (Max's car in the end was dope) and the gangs' constant power struggle over maintaining territory. The road is a wasteland, yet extremely vital for those living in it.
I'm giving Mad Max a 73. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. For a movie to be missing some key components and still get a decent score says a lot. It's kind of like eating at an expensive restaurant: When you see your plate, you're slightly let down because you were hoping for more, but you quickly find that the portion you received was good enough.