Search
Search results
Becs (244 KP) rated Foundations Of Faith in Books
Oct 2, 2019
Style: Light
Point of view: Third person
Difficulty reading: It was as easy as singing the ABC’s!
Promise: Foundations of Faith promises a compelling religious read that will have you answering questions about your own faith.
Quality: All around good read, wasn’t what I was expecting but would definitely reread again.
Insights: Usually when it comes to Fantasy style of books, I always think powers (spells), mythical creatures, places that don’t exist, etc. etc. Foundations of Faith didn’t really have the typical Fantasy aspect to it. Theresa and Thomas have ‘powers’ but they aren’t magical powers like a witch or wizard would have. But it was still a great read that will end up being reread a couple more times.
Ah-Ha Moment: There wasn’t really a moment where I went ‘Ah yea, that’s the turning point’. One scene did come pretty darn close though. This scene: Thomas returns back from the retreat and finds out his mother is in the hospital and his father is in jail for putting his mother in the hospital. It’s never revealed how Thomas’s mother was hurt, and I would have definitely loved if that was explained better but then again this isn’t a Thriller so it’s also okay.
Favorite quote: “She shared how she had finally found God, not in the back of a church with hands held in prayer, but in the back of a police car with hands held in cuffs.” – I feel like this is a huge reason why most end up finding religion/ God. Something terrible or even life-threatening happens to them and they just start praying, see some signs and boom they now believe.
“As he walked, he felt the darkness behind him, following him. He swore he heard it whisper, “Run!” – Hello darkness, my old friend. I’ve come to talk with you again. Because a vision softly creeping, left its seeds while I was sleeping. And the vision that was planted in my brain still remains, within the sound of silence. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself 🙂
Aesthetics: I reallyyyyy dig the cover! It gives it that mystery horror feel even though there isn’t really any horror in Foundations of Faith. The chapter headings, awesome font. Great read. But that cover is just so aesthetically pleasing. 🙂
“The deeper the feelings of unworthiness dug into his heart, the darker the room became. It spread from the outside in, growing darker and more ominous with each new thought. He feared it would swallow him whole.”
Point of view: Third person
Difficulty reading: It was as easy as singing the ABC’s!
Promise: Foundations of Faith promises a compelling religious read that will have you answering questions about your own faith.
Quality: All around good read, wasn’t what I was expecting but would definitely reread again.
Insights: Usually when it comes to Fantasy style of books, I always think powers (spells), mythical creatures, places that don’t exist, etc. etc. Foundations of Faith didn’t really have the typical Fantasy aspect to it. Theresa and Thomas have ‘powers’ but they aren’t magical powers like a witch or wizard would have. But it was still a great read that will end up being reread a couple more times.
Ah-Ha Moment: There wasn’t really a moment where I went ‘Ah yea, that’s the turning point’. One scene did come pretty darn close though. This scene: Thomas returns back from the retreat and finds out his mother is in the hospital and his father is in jail for putting his mother in the hospital. It’s never revealed how Thomas’s mother was hurt, and I would have definitely loved if that was explained better but then again this isn’t a Thriller so it’s also okay.
Favorite quote: “She shared how she had finally found God, not in the back of a church with hands held in prayer, but in the back of a police car with hands held in cuffs.” – I feel like this is a huge reason why most end up finding religion/ God. Something terrible or even life-threatening happens to them and they just start praying, see some signs and boom they now believe.
“As he walked, he felt the darkness behind him, following him. He swore he heard it whisper, “Run!” – Hello darkness, my old friend. I’ve come to talk with you again. Because a vision softly creeping, left its seeds while I was sleeping. And the vision that was planted in my brain still remains, within the sound of silence. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself 🙂
Aesthetics: I reallyyyyy dig the cover! It gives it that mystery horror feel even though there isn’t really any horror in Foundations of Faith. The chapter headings, awesome font. Great read. But that cover is just so aesthetically pleasing. 🙂
“The deeper the feelings of unworthiness dug into his heart, the darker the room became. It spread from the outside in, growing darker and more ominous with each new thought. He feared it would swallow him whole.”
Deep Sleep with Andrew Johnson HD
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
This application is a guided meditation intended to help you overcome insomnia and get to sleep. ...
A Far Off Place
Book
The whole of A Far- Off Place is charged with the power and magic and beauty of Africa. Driven with...
Tidal Blades; Heroes of the Reef
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Welcome Heroes! Many magnificent contestants have signed up for the tournament but only a handful...
The Fall of Gondolin
Book
In the Tale of The Fall of Gondolin are two of the greatest powers in the world. There is Morgoth of...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Family Plot in Books
Sep 16, 2021
Dahlia Lighthouse and her siblings were all named after various people murdered by serial killers. Her parents are obsessed by true crime, and the children were raised in an isolated island home known as the "Murder Mansion" to the locals. Each sibling left when they received their inheritance, except for Dahlia's twin brother, Andy, who disappeared when they were sixteen. Dahlia's been gone from home for seven years when she reluctantly returns after her father's death. Once home, the family receives some terrible news; someone is already buried in their father's plot: Andy, his skull split with an ax. As Dahlia tries to work through her grief over Andy and attempt to figure out what happened to him, she begins to realize that it may trace back to her island home and her family.
"I have to find out what happened to Andy. Then I have to leave this place for good."
This is a dark thriller that will appeal to true crime fans. The Lighthouse family embodies true crime--home schooled, the kids write reports on various serial killer victims and they perform rituals related to their deaths. The obsession with death and murder runs deep, and it's certainly unsettling at first. Dahlia's mother lost her own parents in a gruesome way, and it's definitely apparent that this family isn't quite right.
The first half of this book was really fascinating for me. Weird yes, but oddly interesting as you get to know this messed up family and all their dark secrets. Dahlia seems like a sister grieving the loss of her twin brother, and you find yourself wanting to know what happened to him. There's certainly a limited pool of suspects (small island) but the book keeps you guessing.
The second half did not seem as strong as the first. The weirdness factor ratchets up to almost unbelievable. Dahlia's older siblings are annoying and too much. The limited pool of subjects becomes almost cloying, suddenly making things seem too obvious as the plot thickens and become a bit too bizarre. Things get incredibly grim at times.
Still, while this is a strange read, overall it's a page-turner and something kept me reading. It's like a trainwreck from which you cannot look away. Collins definitely includes some good points about the bonds of family and people's obsession with crime and murder. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Atria Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"I have to find out what happened to Andy. Then I have to leave this place for good."
This is a dark thriller that will appeal to true crime fans. The Lighthouse family embodies true crime--home schooled, the kids write reports on various serial killer victims and they perform rituals related to their deaths. The obsession with death and murder runs deep, and it's certainly unsettling at first. Dahlia's mother lost her own parents in a gruesome way, and it's definitely apparent that this family isn't quite right.
The first half of this book was really fascinating for me. Weird yes, but oddly interesting as you get to know this messed up family and all their dark secrets. Dahlia seems like a sister grieving the loss of her twin brother, and you find yourself wanting to know what happened to him. There's certainly a limited pool of suspects (small island) but the book keeps you guessing.
The second half did not seem as strong as the first. The weirdness factor ratchets up to almost unbelievable. Dahlia's older siblings are annoying and too much. The limited pool of subjects becomes almost cloying, suddenly making things seem too obvious as the plot thickens and become a bit too bizarre. Things get incredibly grim at times.
Still, while this is a strange read, overall it's a page-turner and something kept me reading. It's like a trainwreck from which you cannot look away. Collins definitely includes some good points about the bonds of family and people's obsession with crime and murder. 3.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Atria Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Get Out (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It really doesn’t matter if you’re ‘Black or White”.
Due to a mixture of holiday, work commitments and sickness (I would not wish to inflict my bronchial cough on ANY cinema audience for a while) I haven’t been to the cinema in over a month… shocking. But it has given me a chance to catch up on some of the films in 2017 (and a few from last year) that I hadn’t got to see. So this will be the first of a series of such “DVD” reviews.
“Get Out” was written and directed by Jordan Peele and was his directorial debut. And a hot item on his resume it is too.
Daniel Kaluuya (“Sicario”) plays African-American Chris Washington who, nervously, takes a trip ‘upstate’ to meet the parents of his cute white girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams). The parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford, best known as Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”) and Missy (Catherine Keener, “ Captain Phillips”), are extremely welcoming.
But the weekend coincides with an “annual gathering” of family and friends, and events quickly take a left turn into “The Twilight Zone”, with anti-smoking hypnosis and a bizarre game of Bingo where the win is so substantial that playing becomes a ‘no brainer’. Can Chris ‘Get Out’, with his mind still intact, before it’s too late?
This is a really clever script by Peele. The film baits you into thinking this is some redneck-inter-racial-revenge flick, but actually the colour of the skin is almost irrelevant. (Or is it? This angle is left deliciously vague). Some of the filming is spectacularly creepy, with the hypnosis scene being reminiscent to me of the excellent “Under The Skin”. And never has a teaspoon in a cup of tea been a more devastating weapon.
I seemed to have talked at length this year in this blog on the subject of the “physics of horror”: the story elements hanging together in a satisfying – albeit sometimes in an unbelievable – way. “Get Out” delivers this to perfection, keeping its powder dry until the closing moments of the film before delivering a series of satisfying “Ah!” relevatory moments.
While the ‘physics’ of the film is good the ‘biology’ is bonkers, featuring a plot point from the terrible first episode of the 3rd season of the original “Star Trek” (if you can be bothered to look that up!). But I’ll forgive this, parking my incredulity, to salute what I think is one of the year’s most novel and impressive low-budget indie horror films.
“Get Out” was written and directed by Jordan Peele and was his directorial debut. And a hot item on his resume it is too.
Daniel Kaluuya (“Sicario”) plays African-American Chris Washington who, nervously, takes a trip ‘upstate’ to meet the parents of his cute white girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams). The parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford, best known as Josh Lyman from “The West Wing”) and Missy (Catherine Keener, “ Captain Phillips”), are extremely welcoming.
But the weekend coincides with an “annual gathering” of family and friends, and events quickly take a left turn into “The Twilight Zone”, with anti-smoking hypnosis and a bizarre game of Bingo where the win is so substantial that playing becomes a ‘no brainer’. Can Chris ‘Get Out’, with his mind still intact, before it’s too late?
This is a really clever script by Peele. The film baits you into thinking this is some redneck-inter-racial-revenge flick, but actually the colour of the skin is almost irrelevant. (Or is it? This angle is left deliciously vague). Some of the filming is spectacularly creepy, with the hypnosis scene being reminiscent to me of the excellent “Under The Skin”. And never has a teaspoon in a cup of tea been a more devastating weapon.
I seemed to have talked at length this year in this blog on the subject of the “physics of horror”: the story elements hanging together in a satisfying – albeit sometimes in an unbelievable – way. “Get Out” delivers this to perfection, keeping its powder dry until the closing moments of the film before delivering a series of satisfying “Ah!” relevatory moments.
While the ‘physics’ of the film is good the ‘biology’ is bonkers, featuring a plot point from the terrible first episode of the 3rd season of the original “Star Trek” (if you can be bothered to look that up!). But I’ll forgive this, parking my incredulity, to salute what I think is one of the year’s most novel and impressive low-budget indie horror films.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
The rule of threes is a pretty solid philosophy. We find things repeated in triplicate satisfying and complete. There is no rule of four, it isn’t a thing. Four is usually one too many… and this was the fear for all Pixar and Toy Story fans when this project was announced, fairly unexpectedly, in 2018. Toy Story 3 was a beautiful and heart-rending end to the saga of Woody, Buzz and co. It was an end. Wasn’t it? Everything worth saying had been said, and it was all tied up in a plastic bow rather perfectly.
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
Well, Pixar are innovators and pioneers of the highest order, so maybe we should just trust that they know what they are doing (apart from the Cars series). Please don’t ruin it all, is all we asked, with fingers crossed. So many franchises and beloved event movies have had their legacy shat on by one too many sequels. Die Hard, Alien, Star Wars, The Terminator, etc, etc. Isn’t it best to leave well alone and concentrate on new ideas and new directions?
All the usual voice actors, Mr Hanks and Mr Allen, were back on board, with some intriguing additions in guest stars such as Christina Hendricks and Keanu Reeves, as Gabby Gabby and Duke Caboom, respectively. There was also a new director in Josh Cooley, who had been part of the team since story boarding The Incredibles in 2003, and graduating to writer and actor on Inside Out. It’s good to know Pixar look after their own with these kind of opportunities, but was this the right film and series to be making a debut in? A lot of pressure, you would think.
So, firstly, by now we know the entire world breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t terrible. Not only wasn’t it terrible, but it was a heck of a lot of fun! I mean, a lot! It went on to win the Oscar for best animated film, and everyone that went on to watch it after its cinema release unanimously says: “Hey, this is much better than I thought… maybe even my second favourite out of the four”. And it is true! It’s not just good enough, it is great. I loved it.
I tend to save my animation for Sundays. I don’t know why, but that feels like the best day to indulge my inner child and sense of sentimental wonder. From minute one I was into this film. As soon as you see and hear your old friends in the toy box, it doesn’t take long to feel at home in this world of talking, walking, feeling, fearing, loving characters. They are so well drawn, in all senses, it is hard to think of animated entities so adored and part of the family. I laughed, I cried, I felt excited and worried and tense and ultimately warmed up with joy. It has it all.
Not to say it merely repeats the best tricks of the first three, it doesn’t. In fact, there are a lot of differences here. It feels a little more mature, like we have all grown up together and have no need to be patronised or expositioned at. It assumes we know these people (yes, I think of them as people, that is why it works) and can leap into their lives at any point. Woody, who is of course the beating heart of the show, has been a friend, a paramour and brother before, but now he is a father figure too, an evolution that reflects life. And these guys know how effective that is going to be.
There is a slight concern regarding his adopted ward, the controversial “Forky”, who seemed a little childish and simplistic in theory… but that becomes a wonderful part of the whole point… no spoilers. I’d understand if the character grated a tiny touch at first; it kinda did with me. But the laughs are there eventually, and some of them are big laughs! Fear not, it works. Not perfect, but it works. Although why it isn’t called “Sporky” I do not know… it is clearly a spork and not a fork. Oh, yes, I know why, it is because that is what Bonnie calls him, and she is a child. Genius. I was wrong.
The plot, such as it is, is an adventure story worthy of Indiana Jones at points, and it moves along at an exciting clip for sure! Gabby Gabby is gloriously sinister, as are her ventriloquist dummy henchmen; Duke Caboom is hilarious and has probably the best light relief moments; but there is also the duo of “Ducky” and “Bunny” to enjoy on a more surreal and perhaps more adult level. Even when you see where it is going, it has the ability to surprise you, which is terrific film-making art in any animation, or anything full stop. Not least, the final 10 minutes, which break the heart in the best way, just as all the previous films have done. The thought of where they leave it brings a lump to my throat even now!
In short. If you haven’t seen it: do. If you have, watch it again as part of a Toy Story marathon and see exactly how different it is from start to finish, and just how many themes and ideas it has covered in its 25 year existence. Bravo Pixar, you did it again!
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Boondock Saints (1999) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
B is for Bad A**
Contains spoilers, click to show
This entertaining action film opens with aerial views of Boston and narration of the Lord's Prayer on St. Patty's Day. Soon, we are introduced to two Irish brothers, Connor and Murphy MacManus. The terrible twosome work in a meat-packing plant: in their spare time, they slaughter evildoers. What could be better? With their black shirts, black blazers, and blue jeans, the brothers seem like Mormon missionaries gone horribly wrong.
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
Connor and Murphy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), fall into the
profession of murdering bad guys quite by accident. Initially, the fact that they killed a Russian crime lord, and his associate, after a bar fight seems a coincidental act of self-defense. They are hailed, at first, as heroes. They somehow continue to avoid prosecution, though from the beginning they are being pursued by FBI agent Paul Smecker. They start targeting the crime lords on purpose, and they eventually end up being hunted by a more ominous figure, the legendary hitman Il Duce.
Willem Dafoe gets an A for awesome in my book for his performance as FBI agent Paul Smecker. Smecker is a homosexual, and he is not apologetic about it. In fact, he draws attention to his orientation in many scenes. Particularly memorable is the moment where he corrects an officer’s use of the word “symbology” by hissing a pronounced s: “ssssymbolism.” Later in the film, Dafoe even gets the opportunity to use his feminine wiles by dressing in drag, a visual experience which I promise is as disconcerting as it sounds.
The presentation of Smecker’s crime scene explanations was particularly impressive. The crime scene was shown first, and the events that created it unfolded in retrospect as Smecker described the scene. Enhanced by the intensity of the score, Dafoe offered a memorable narration of an epic shootout, during which he resembles an insane conductor.
The writing in this film was great, with witty one-liners throughout to break the tension. There were several moments in the film where one wonders if the brothers’ success is due to dumb luck or divinity. The MacManus twins certainly seem to believe that their cause is a righteous one.
I must also acknowledge the score, by Jeff Danna, which beautifully compliments the opening sequence and the rest of the film. The score even includes a variation of a hymn, infused with a beat you can dance to.
I love a good revenge film, and this is one for the ages. To sum up my complex feelings about the vigilante-style justice in this film, I must end with a quote by Connor MacManus: "I'm strangely comfortable with it."
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.