Mad Max: Fury Road

Well, the buzz on 2015's Mad Max: Fury Road has been ridiculously, uniformly, amazingly positive. Critically and with audiences, it is finding its spot in the summer blockbuster world. I really wanted to see it, but then when people were absolutely RAVING about it, I N-E-E-D-E-D to see it. So here we are. It took me a couple weeks, but away with one of the best movies of the year!

Years into the future, the world has torn itself apart, the Earth seemingly on the brink of total destruction. The land is a scorched wasteland where water, food and all the necessities for survival are in incredibly short supply. On this post-apocalyptic, scorched wasteland, a drifter named Max (Tom Hardy) is on his own, an armored car to his name with little else. He's captured by the enforcers of a brutal ruler, Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), and kept as a prisoner and universal blood donor, but this isn't the end for this quiet drifter. Immortan Joe's brutal dictatorship is up in the air though as one of his sub-commanders, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), has gone rogue. The Imperator has hijacked one of Joe's armored convoys and stole five of his beautiful women breeders and is on the run. Immortan Joe rolls out his entire armored army and tears across the desert in pursuit. Along for the ride in his role as blood donor? Max, waiting for his chance to break free.

Holy crazy movie. It's been three days since I saw this movie, and I'm still recovering! Oh, totally in a good way if there was any confusion. Director George Miller directed the three Mad Max movies from the late 1970s and into the 1980s, the trilogy starring Mel Gibson as Max. Miller has stayed busy in the years since, but he returns here to put an incredible new spin on a familiar character and franchise. And that's my rule. If you're going to reboot a franchise, DO....IT....RIGHT. This film takes the elements that made the original Mad Max so popular (some in cult classic fashion), throws it in the blender, adds some new extreme elements -- I would say mind-inducing drugs -- and tears it up. As a post-apocalyptic story, as an action movie, as a gigantically successful blockbuster, 'Fury' is unlike just about any movie you've ever seen and very much for the better.

As a visual medium, in storytelling technique, in its frenetic action, Miller creates a world. His post-apocalyptic world is bizarre and trippy and unsettling and deranged and completely amazing to watch. Whole studies and papers could be written about the visual look of the world. Immortan Joe wears a bizarre suit that encapsulates its lecherous body while also favoring a mask covering his teeth that gives him a predatory look. His army of War Boys wear black pants, no shirts, have shaved heads and are painted an immaculate white. The surviving peasants wear rags, desperately awaiting handouts from Joe and his forces. It's more than that though. It's how they talk, how they interact, the culture we're introduced to, the little excruciatingly cool details. Not everything is spelled out, not everything is explained, but the trip into this drugged out, sand-ravaged world where death is incredibly cheap and even trivial, it all works. All those little things come together to work in perfect fashion, like puzzle pieces clicking into place.

So if you ask me, Tom Hardy can do no wrong. I've loved just about every role he's done, but this one is interesting. This is his first personal starring franchise as he's signed on for several more Mad Max movies, supposedly four. What's remarkable about this part? He says virtually nothing the entire movie other than one late monologue, and that's all strategy and planning, nothing personal about him. This is a performance of presence and owning the screen without much in the way of dialogue. We know little about Hardy's Max Rockatansky other than that he has hallucinations of his daughter, which clicks with the original trilogy. We know virtually nothing about him and are given even less as the money goes along. What are we left with? A man hell-bent on survival even as he's thrust into a horrific battle of life and death that he has nothing to do with. I hope the future Mad Max movies delve into Max's character and background more, but in the meantime, his presence and on-screen persona are more than enough.

Let's be honest though. This movie could have been called Mad Max and Imperator Furiosa: Fury Road. The movie's success hinges on Hardy and Theron. There just aren't many female action heroes, and Theron's Furiosa is a doozy of a success. Hair cropped close to her head, black makeup over her eyes and forehead, one-armed, Furiosa is a true film badass. She's had enough of working for Immortan Joe and steals his women, escapes and plans to resettle in the Green Place, where she grew up. It's cool to see a strong female action hero, on the same level as her male counterpart. There just isn't much dialogue for Max and Furiosa to bond, but through their horrific trials on the run, they do form an uneasy, somewhat trusting partnership. An excellent one-two punch in lead performances.

A cast member of the original Mad Max movie from 1979, Keays-Byrne is an incredible villain, an imposing and intimidating presence who's visual look is as terrifying as the character itself. His rivals turned partners are named the Bullet Farmer (Richard Carter) and the People Eater (John Howard), their armies of enforcers along for the ride. Representing the War Boys is Nux (Nicholas Hoult), a young fighter so desperately seeking and fighting for Immortan Joe's approval. With names like Toast the Knowing, the Splendid Angharad, Capable, the Dag and Cheedo the Fragile, Joe's breeding women include Zoe Kravitz, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton. Also look for Nathan Jones as Rictus, Joe's muscle-bound son, always by his side ready to dispatch any enemies.

The style and world is awesome. Hardy and Theron are quite memorable. Blah blah blah. This is one of the most ridiculously entertaining, hugely stylized action movies EVER. E-V-E-R. What's special though is that Miller and Co. appeared to have actually filmed much of the action sequences. Novel concept, ain't it? Sure, there's CGI sprinkled here and there, but a majority of the action was filmed with real cars and real people doing some crazy, goofy stunts. This is a 2-hour car chase. That's it and that's all. We get little glimpses of the people, who they are and the world they live in, but this is a 2-hour car chase. Process that. It's crazy and high-reaching when you think about what Miller set out to do and then execute the plan so strongly. Max, Furiosa and the breeders end up on the War Rig, a tricked out, armored oil tanker hauling ass across the desert with warring caravans of scavengers and marauders hot on their trail. The long shots of these murdering scavengers tearing across the desert are beautiful and simple and straightforward, always keeping the viewer apprised of where the action is and how it's developing.

It's hard to put into words how visceral, how adrenaline-pumping these scenes really are. There's just this manic energy on display with each passing scene. As Tyrese said in Fast/Furious 6, it's vehicular warfare....on steroids. Immortan Joe's forces hunt them down with brutal intensity, cars and motorcycles and trucks chasing them across the desert. The action is one thing though. The execution is another. Joe's forces ride into battle to War Boys riding on trucks playing snare drums. One man wearing red footy pajamas is strapped to a truck as he plays a three-pronged guitar that is also...a flamethrower. What? WHAT?!? The score -- heavy drums, heart-pounding throughout -- from Dutch multi-instrumentalist Junkie XL is perfectly suited to the action, adding more energy and chaos (because that's what it needed) to the already energetic, chaotic, frenetic violence. Give the soundtrack a listen HERE. Watch the movie for yourself. It's better seen several times than read in a review.

What a movie. WHAT A MOVIE.  A gusty script from Miller, Brendan McCarthy and Nick Lathouris takes so many chances with its sparse dialogue and almost complete lack of characterization. The formula they used instead is pretty perfect. It took me a couple days to really process this one, but I liked and loved it more with each passing day. So freaking good. It shouldn't work this well -- just shouldn't -- but it does in all its unpredictable chaos.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015): ****/****

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Seth MacFarlane is one of the more polarizing personalities currently working in Hollywood. The creator of TV's Family Guy and man behind 2012's very funny and very wrong Ted, MacFarlane typically inspires a 'love him or hate him' reaction from audiences. I typically come down on the love him side, loving Ted and for the most part liking Family Guy. So when I read MacFarlane was working on a comedy film western....well, color me curious. Here's 2014's A Million Ways to Die in the West.

It's 1882 in Arizona and cowardly rancher Albert Stark (MacFarlane) is trying to make the most of his small sheep ranch in the desert. He's dating the pretty, young teacher, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and even though the wild west life is pretty rough, Albert is pleased....and then he isn't. After he negotiates his way out of a gunfight rather than shoot it out, Albert gets dumped by Louise. He just sort of drifts along afterwards, eventually meeting a new woman in town, Anna (Charlize Theron), who he clicks with very quickly. It isn't long before Albert gets roped into another gunfight with Louise's new man, but that's the least of his problems. Anna isn't telling him everything about who she is and more importantly, who she's married to. Her husband? Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson), a bandit and one of the most notorious gunfighters around. Now, Albert is really in for some trouble.

Released in theaters just this past weekend, 'Million' earned over $17 but was still dubbed a disappointment. Reviews were decidedly mixed to negative, and what little word of mouth I heard was....I'll say, less than positive. Nonetheless, I plunged on! It's a comedy western -- which I'm not a huge fan of to begin with -- but it certainly looked like the talent involved had put together a winning product. Andddddddddddddd, yeah, unfortunately that's not the case. This is not a good movie to the point I will even say it is really, really bad. Making it worse, it does have some potential but never amounts to anything other than a winning joke or bit here and there. It is painfully long at 116 minutes (it feels much, much longer) and simply tries too hard. Simply swearing in the wild west with vulgar sex jokes, pretty raunchy physical humor, some drug jokes, it isn't enough. There's got to be something more.

The parts that do work? It all goes back to the title. The wild west was a particularly nasty place, and as MacFarlane's movie/script points out in its strongest moments, there were a countless myriad of ways to die and to die graphically. The bits that work come from that simple premise, the west was almost trying to kill you. MacFarlane's Albert has a funny monologue pointing out all those ways people can and do die from. The payoff is priceless, Albert literally pointing out the town mayor's dead body that's been lying in the street untouched for three days. The bit comes back later with a great sight gag. The same for the county fair where people always seem to die gruesome, grisly deaths. Gags like that work and do it well, an intelligence to the humor. There isn't enough of those sorts of gags and bits. Instead, we get jokes about a retarded sheep, a gunfighter who can't join the gunfight because he has two (TWO) bouts of extreme and very public diarrhea, and a sheep peeing on Albert while he's hiding from Clinch's gunmen. Now, that's funny!

Some reviews criticized MacFarlane for casting himself in his movie. That's the least of my concerns. You may not like his humor, but he knows how to get laughs. His quick, random asides work well, and a cowardly sheep rancher is an interesting chance of pace for a lead in a western. The script does him no favors though, his Albert getting too many ranting and raving monologues that feel forced. His scenes are okay with Theron, but they tend to slow things down even more. Neeson looks to be having some fun as the dastardly Clinch, a bandit who's reputation precedes him, but even he is underused. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS There are a couple surprise appearances along the way but blink and you'll miss them. They include Christopher Lloyd, Ewan MacGregor, Ryan Reynolds, Gilbert Gottfried, Jamie Foxx (stay for the credits), and then Patrick Stewart providing his recognizable voice for a quick voiceover. END OF SPOILERS YOU MAY CONTINUE READING NOW.

Who else to look for? Wes Studi is a quick scene-stealer in his appearance as Cochise, the wise Apache chief who guides Albert through his struggles. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman don't fare so well as an engaged couple. Oh, and Silverman is a prostitute, but the couple is "saving themselves" for marriage. So yeah, we get lots of raunchy sex jokes that fell short one and all. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater with each passing joke. Repeated jokes about anal and oral sex and ejaculation can only take you so far. Neil Patrick Harris plays Foy, Louise's new beau, impressive mustache to boot. Screen veteran Matt Clark gets a quick part too as a gold prospector.

What I found disappointing was that MacFarlane was genuinely trying to do something different here. In one way, he's trying to make a comedic spoof western in the vein of Blazing Saddles. He's not making a generic, studio-forced sequel. At no point does it click though, a series of bits and one-liners that work at times on their own, but ultimately fall short. MacFarlane looks to be a western fan, even shooting on-location in Monument Valley, made famous by famed western director John Ford. Everything from the look to the throwback-sounding score to the credits scream 'WESTERN!' but it never gels as one cohesive picture. Struggles to find the right tone, the right comedy, the right rhythm, you can point to any and all of these problems as handicapping the final product.

Your call in the end. I love westerns and when a comedy western is handled correctly, I'll go along for the ride. This western most definitely tried, but it just doesn't happen. A few good bits don't amount to something worthwhile in the end. I didn't like this movie at all, and there were more than a few extended scenes that were painful to watch. Truly painful, made all that much worse by the fact that somewhere in all that mess is a potentially very good movie. As is though, steer clear. If you do go see it, definitely don't watch the trailer.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014): */****

In the Valley of Elah

Maybe 15 or 20 years down the road, there will be a wave of movies in theaters about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, much the way movies about WWII and even Korea and Vietnam were released. I doubt it, but who knows. For now, the wounds may be too fresh so we get movies kinda about the war, related but not directly about the fighting, like 2007's In the Valley of Elah.

A former army veteran and military policeman, Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones) lives in Tennessee with his wife, Joan (Susan Sarandon). He is more than surprised one day to get a call that his son, Mike, recently back from a tour in Iraq, has gone missing and is days away from being reported as going AWOL. Curious what's going on and sensing something suspicious, Hank drives to the army base in New Mexico to look into it himself, investigating what's happened to his son, if anything. He gets various responses, some more helpful than others. Hank is stonewalled by some, greeted by others, and gets some less than willing help from a local detective, Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron), who joins him in the investigation. It doesn't take long before clues mount up, but it might all be for naught. Mike's body has been found, dismembered and burned. What was Hank's son into?

Over the last ten-plus years, there hasn't been too many things more divisive than the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some support it wholeheartedly, others question why American forces are there at all. This film from director Paul Haggis goes down a different part -- mostly -- by having the fighting serve as a jumping off point for a police procedural. What happened in Iraq affects the police investigation. We follow Hank and Emily as they investigate Mike's disappearance, eventual murder and what led to it. The movie is at its strongest in those moments, a low-key but tense mystery that keeps us guessing. Hank, Emily, local police and army investigators all search and pursue each and every clue, anything that might lead to answers. Most lead to nothing, just dead ends, but all it takes is one clue to bring it all together.

What the movie is more focused on -- via the investigation -- is how the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has impacted the lives of the soldiers involved. A nasty little sub-genre of war movies dating back to The Best Years of Our Lives through Born on the Fourth of July and many more all deal with Post-traumatic stress disorder following their deployments. Through some videos and photos recovered from Mike's phone, Hank sees what his son and his fellow soldiers went through on a daily basis. Much like Vietnam was a new war, the Iraq war was unlike other conflicts. It becomes almost impossible to identify who your enemy is. Anyone and everyone could be trying to kill you. Thankfully the script and story from Haggis and Mark Boal doesn't hit us over the head with its message (for the most part). What the soldiers see, do and experience affects them in horrendous ways, ways that they can't just shake off because they're not overseas anymore.

Taking two familiar-ish characters and making them more than a cliched, cardboard cutout are Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron. Who better to play a world-weary, semi-retired MP and army vet than TLJ? He's quiet and understated, knowing the answers he's looking for will almost certainly bring nothing positive. Just the same, he goes about his investigation so he knows what really happened to his son, and maybe more importantly, what drove him down that path. Theron's part is more familiar, a female detective who gets no respect from her colleagues, also a single mother with a son at home. She takes on this case for a couple reasons, to show she can, a little out of spite, and sometimes even against her better judgement. It's two really good performances, both with chances to show off dramatically, but neither actor overdoes it. Like their characters, they just go about their business.

Supporting Jones and Theron is an equally impressive supporting cast. Sarandon nails a smallish part as Jones' wife, waiting at home for a phone call she doesn't want to hear. Jason Patric is a scene-stealer as Sgt. Kirklander, an officer with Army intelligence trying to do his job as best he can while also seemingly trying to cover the Army's butt just in case. James Franco plays an Army officer who meets Hank early on while Josh Brolin plays the Chief of police, two small parts that didn't seem to justify the star power associated with them. Cool to see, just odd. Barry Corbin and Frances Fisher have quick appearances as people Hank meets/contacts during his questioning. Playing some of Mike's buddies from his squad are Wes Chatham, Jake McLaughlin, Mehcad Brooks and Roman Arabia with Jonathan Tucker playing Mike via flashback. 

It's funny how one scene can change your feelings about a movie, and how quickly it can happen. Obviously, this is an anti-war movie, but I thought for the most part, Haggis did a good job getting his message across without screaming "THIS WAR IS BAD!" at us as viewers. Then there's the final shot of the movie which came across as heavy-handed and awkward. It's too bad because the build-up got that message across. The war is bad, and the effect it is having on our soldiers is horrific. I thought he got that message across building up to the finale. Too bad because the final reveal about Mike is a whopper, shocking and uncomfortable to hear. Still a really good film, but the ending left me with a sour taste because of one single shot. Go figure.

In the Valley of Elah (2007): ***/****

Prometheus

With moves like 1979's Alien and 1982's Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott created two of the most well-known, well-respected, and popular science fiction movies of the last 30-plus years, and seemingly was on the road to becoming a sci-fi master. To be fair, with those two movies alone, he is a sci-fi master. He hadn't returned to science fiction until the recent release, 2012's Prometheus, a prequel to Alien. Worth the wait? Flawed overall, but an epic success when it does work.

It is the year 2089 and two scientists, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), have made a series of discoveries -- cave paintings from different places and eras in human history -- that all have a common link. They all contain a drawing of some sort of being pointing to the same galactic location. Some two years later onboard the spaceship Prometheus, Shaw and Holloway are part of an expedition traveling to the darkest corners of the universe in search of what those paintings might mean. Is there intelligent life out there? Did they create us as a race? After the two-year journey, Prometheus arrives at the moon LV-223 to continue the investigation. They find evidence of another race but something else as well. What did this race create?

Some film directors just have credibility at the very mention of their name, and Ridley Scott is one of those few. When this movie is good, it is great. I didn't see it in 3-D, but the look of the movie is incredible, especially a mysterious opening sequence...but more on that later. The musical score is kept to a minimum, but when it's used, it makes quite an impression (kudos to composer Marc Streitenfeld). Like the most effective science fiction stories and movies, it succeeds because it makes you think, makes you question. What better place to do that than the far reaches of the universe? Anything could exist out there, friendly or aggressive. Were we put on Earth for a reason? Does faith mean anything? Do your beliefs truly mean something to you? When you're in a spot, how do you react? At its best, Scott's film explores some of these issues. Oh, he also does a fair job trying to scare the hell out of you as a viewer.

It's been years since I've seen the Alien movies, but as a prequel, it has a distinctly different feel. The visual is stunning here. Yes, it's a science fiction movie that degenerates into a creature feature (unfortunately), but it can also fairly and accurately be described as an artsy, minimalist take on mankind, space travel, the future and so much more. Basically the exact opposite of a summer blockbuster. It forces you to pay attention and think for yourself. It isn't always an easy movie to follow, but for the most part you're rewarded in the end. Nothing is ever really spelled out for you. That can be both rewarding and frustrating, especially in the finale. It is different though, and Scott tries for something more than the norm.

An effective, solid ensemble cast steps to the forefront for Scott's prequel, starting with Rapace and Holloway as the archeologists searching for answers. Charlize Theron is brutally cold and efficient as Vickers, the Weyland Corporation representative in charge of making sure the mission goes off according to plan. Her looks can deceive you, but she's cold and calculated. Idris Elba has another scene-stealing part as Janek, the Prometheus captain (with co-pilots Emun Elliott and Benedict Wong), an everyman but highly intelligent and able to piece things together for his job and mission. Guy Pearce in heavy make-up plays Weyland, the aging, decrepit CEO who finances the deep space mission. Sean Harris and Rafe Spall have smaller but just as important parts as Fifield and Millburn, two members of the investigating team, each with their own hopes on the mission. Also look for Patrick Wilson in a one-scene part, Shaw's father in a dream sequence.

The part that no doubt most moviegoers will remember though is David, an android created by the Weyland Corp. to blend in as a human, possessing everything but a soul. David is played to perfection by rising star Michael Fassbender in a part that could/should earn him an Oscar nod. The obvious comparison is to Hal in Space Odyssey, but that's limiting and not a completely fair comparison. This android has human mannerisms and touches -- he moves like a man, rides bikes, plays basketball, mimics Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia -- but there's also that one thing, that one little thing that prevents him from being a man. It's hard to put my finger on it, but Fassbender does an incredible job. His David is sympathetic, menacing, brilliant, intimidating and conniving. Because he can be programmed, it's can be difficult to get a read on his intentions, but whatever they may be, Fassbender is the star of Prometheus without a doubt.

Certain moments in Prometheus have stuck with me since seeing it and no doubt will stick with me in the days and weeks to come. The opening sequence is a jaw-dropper; a supremely muscle-bound, albino humanoid being left on a desolate, isolated landscape (a pre-civilization Earth?) as a spaceship takes off. He takes a potion that kills him, his body decomposing in seconds. Is it the creation of mankind? Who knows for sure? The arrival at LV-223 is equally impressive, the Prometheus attempting to find a landing zone as it travels through the atmosphere and the terrain below. Stunning visual sequences, both of them. Once the crew detects some variation on life, the visual turns to the dark and unsettling, the feeling of Doomsday looming in the air.

While I will readily recommend the movie overall, I can also say I came away slightly disappointed in the end. I don't need everything wrapped up nicely with a bow, and open-ended endings aren't a movie killer for me. But as is here, the ending left me unsatisfied. I wanted more.....of something. It doesn't have to be answers spelled out for me, but there's got to be something. Here, it just ends. On the whole, I'll heartily recommend it. Know there are flaws, but the positives ended up being particularly memorable for this moviegoer. Definitely give this one a try! Also check out the great teaser trailer below. The full-length trailer (watch HERE) is also above average as trailers go.

Prometheus <---trailer (2012): ***/****

The Italian Job (2003)

In an age of sequels, prequels and remakes, all I'm usually looking for is a new tweak. It doesn't have to be a major thing, just a difference. So how about a remake of the 1969 cult favorite The Italian Job? First, Americanize it of sorts, put together a cool cast, stylish heist, and ta-da! We've got 2003's The Italian Job!

Having pulled off an intricate robbery in Venice, Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg), John Bridger (Donald Sutherland) and their heist team manage to escape with $35 million of gold bars. But as they escape in the Alps, one of the team, Steve (Edward Norton), turns on the group and steals the gold for himself. Bridger is shot and killed and the rest are left for dead as Steve escapes with all the gold. A year later, Charlie has managed to track down Steve who's gone into hiding. He's got the heist team back together, and they're looking for some revenge. What better way than to steal their gold back? They'll need help though so Charlie recruits Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter and an expert safecracker.

Basically this is a remake in name only. Oh, and a team of crooks does in fact steal things while using Mini-Coopers as part of the getaway. Other than that though, it's a whole other heist movie that stands on its own. Director F. Gary Gray has modernized the story, jumping the story from a European setting to Philadelphia and Los Angeles instead. There is something simple, straightforward and appealing about this remake. Low-key isn't the right description, but 'Italian' doesn't try to rewrite or reinvent the genre. It knows where it wants to get, and it knows how it's going to get there. Is it so wrong that it is just a solid, entertaining and fun heist movie? I say that like 'Just' is a bad thing.

That comfort level in knowing where the movie hopes to end up is most evident in the actual heists. The opening robbery of a heavily guarded home in Venice is an ideal scene-setter, capping off with a high-speed boat chase through the Venetian canals. It gets the movie going at a breakneck speed immediately, and Sutherland's appearance is a very cool addition. The finale heist is again, pretty straightforward, but just as exciting. Norton's Steve is onto Charlie's plan and tries to sneak the gold out, but with three Mini-Coopers, explosives, Russian gangsters, armored truck guards, heavily armed motorcycle guards and a patrolling helicopter 'Italian' has some tricks up its sleeve right until the end.

More than the heist aspect of 'Italian,' the thing that most appeals to me about this movie is the casting. Both the good guys, the bad guys and the yet to be determined to the end, it is a likable, appealing cast. Wahlberg especially is one of my favorites, an actor who's carved a niche out for himself, playing a variation on the tough guy everyman. If it sounds like a dig or something negative, I don't mean it, but he's incredibly likable on-screen, especially as the confident high-class thief leading his team. It's also good to see Theron do just a fun movie, not a big, message movie. She fits in well with the crew, and it's the type of part that's right in her wheelhouse. And can you go wrong with a quick appearance by Donald Sutherland? Too bad it's not a larger part. Charlie's team also includes Handsome Rob (Jason Statham), the driver and all-around ladies man, Lyle (Seth Green), the tech guy and hacker who claims Napster was his own creation, Left Ear (rapper Mos Def), specialist in explosives, and Wrench (Franky G), the mechanic who rigs the cars for added weight.

Oh, yeah, Edward Norton is awesome whether he plays a good guy or bad guy. Playing the paranoid thief with $ for eyes, he doesn't disappoint. Also look for Olek Krupa as Mashkov, a Ukrainian gangster who has an interest in how the robbery develops, but no spoilers here. Not a ton to analyze about this ready-made, entertaining heist rehash, but I think that's the point. It's got action, laughs and a good dynamic among the team, especially Green impersonating Statham. Watch it HERE, it's dead-on. Just sit back and enjoy Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron and Jason Statham try to pull off a crazy heist. Fun from the start.

The Italian Job <---trailer (2003): ***/****

The Road

Read enough of an author's work, and I've always thought you get a decent look at their outlook on life.  More specific than that, look at the endings to books/novels/short stories, and often enough you get a window into their heads.  I've read four of Cormac McCarthy's novels and realize it's impossible to peg this guy down.  In 'No Country for Old Men' and 'Blood Meridian,' the endings are cynical, incredibly dark and pessimistic.  McCarthy is not one to write a happy ending, but for 'All the Pretty Horse' and 'The Road' there are endings that at least offer hope.

Most recently, The Road was made into a feature length movie of the same name in 2009.  Granted, it was in theaters for about 90 minutes -- if at all on Chicago's Southside -- so I didn't get a chance to see it, but the movie hit DVD last week.  The book is a critical favorite, and McCarthy shows his ability to spin a simplistic story that can still be profound (maybe because of its simplicity).  When I found out the novel was being made into a movie, I was suspicious at first.  This post-apocalyptic novel is not full of action or dialogue, and to tell you the truth, not much happens at all.  But somehow, just like the source novel, the film is worthwhile almost in spite of itself at times

Director John Hillcoat has made a movie that creates a tangible, very real look at what a post-apocalyptic world would look and feel like.  He filmed all over the U.S. including Pennsylvania and Oregon and drops the viewer into this world.  The only color we ever see is in a few quick flashbacks to a pre-apocalypse world while everything else is shot in shades of gray and brown.  Nothing specific is ever mentioned as to what happened to the world, but plants are dying, animals are seemingly extinct, and the sky is always covered in dark, gloomy clouds.  As one character points out, the world is dying, and we are too.  Uplifting message, huh?

In this dreary God-forsaken world, a man (Viggo Mortensen) travels along the vacant roads with his young son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) just trying to survive from day-to-day.  Food and water are scarce, and they trudge along looking for anything that might help them survive.  It's been years since something happened to the world and almost destroyed civilization, leaving very few people alive.  Those that are left? Some are like the father and son doing their best to survive.  Others have joined together into roving gangs ready and willing to kill for any reason.  The father and son travel south, hoping to eventually reach the coast and hopefully find a better place.  But in this world, there's no guarantees of anything.

McCarthy's novel is simple and to the point in creating this sparsely-occupied world.  Translating that to a 2-hour movie is/was a daunting task if you ask me because whole stretches in the novel are just descriptions of the things they find and places they walk through.  That's really my only issue with the movie.  To call it leisurely paced is a huge understatement.  I realize the movie's trying to tell us and show us how these two people survive in this world, but it drags in a big way.

The movie is at its best when dealing with the trials and tribulations father and son must make their way through.  Very few people are still alive, but when they do find them, it's every man for himself.  It is kill or be killed, and look out for the individual first.  In this vast, desolate world, someone trying to kill you could be anywhere waiting for their chance.  When these moments do come along, they're the type of scenes that can send chills up and down your back like no thriller/horror movie ever could.  These scenes show how alone this father and son really are.  No one's there to help them.  They're on their own.  Maybe that's the purpose of the slower scenes -- to lull you into a comfort zone -- and in that sense, the deliberate pacing works.

Viggo Mortensen, besides having basically the coolest names ever, is one of the best actors around, and this is a performance that lets him show off his talent.  His sole goal in life is not for himself to survive, but to help his son survive and keep going.  This is a man who's survived for years -- and looks it too -- who is driven by that one desire and goal to help his son.  13-year old Smit-McPhee is impressive as well in his first big-budget movie.  This is a boy who doesn't know any other existence, but still has a humanity and a belief in morality as they cross this ravaged world.  Other parts include Charlize Theron (only in flashback) as Viggo's wife, Robert Duvall as Ely, a 90-year old nearly blind man they meet on the trail, and Guy Pearce and Molly Parker as a man and woman traveling south too.

As for McCarthy's ending, the movie sticks pretty close to what the novel presented.  And as depressing as it could be taken, it offers some semblance of hope.  All these apocalyptic, dystopian stories almost have to end with a remnant surviving, one last pocket of humanity that offers some sort of hope for the future -- however bleak that future may be.  The moral of the story is this, I can't get a read on McCarthy at all, and maybe that's a good thing.  His novels aren't always easy to read, and the movie translations can be difficult at times, but in the end they're worth it.

The Road <----trailer (2009): ***/****