Vacation (2015) **

Vacation has a scene early in the film where Rusty (Ed Helms) and his family have a conversation where the main topic is a pretty much breaking the third wall, discussing how this Vacation will stand on its own and won’t need the previous vacation to work. While watching this scene the red flags shot up. And it turns out, those red flags that pop up from time to time are correct.

The plot of Vacation is exactly the same as its 1983 predecessor.  Rusty wants to take his family to Wally World to bring the family closer together. They run into comedic misadventures. They almost give up on the Wally World dream. There are notable changes, mainly in what the writers feel are upgrades from the original film. Instead of dog urine on a sandwich this film gives us swimming in raw sewage. Cousin Eddie has been replaced by the beefy weatherman brother-in-law. Of course most of these fall flat in the film, but they tried. Am I right?

Not really. This is pure paint by numbers that doesn’t have the heart of the original film. The biggest difference is between Ed Helms and Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase’s role of the family patriarch showed him as doing dumb things. Ed Helm’s version is playing him as a dumb individual. That’s the huge difference. Clark did some stupid things in the original film, but I don’t see him leading them to a swim in sewage. Which leads to a revelation during the last fifteen minutes of the film that just pops up, yet is fixed in the same scene. You could have made the film without this conflict and it would have been the same. The fact that this issue isn’t really presented during the film, even when dumb things are happening just insults the intelligence of the audience. It’s like introducing a character mentioned only in passing earlier in a mystery novel to play the villain. Bleh.

Vacation has a few laughs, put misses as a whole. Someone would be better off watching the original film in its place. There’s no real soul to this film. Probably the best part of the original film was that viewers could relate to going on vacations like the one shown in the film. This film is the exact opposite. It feels like a vacation that grew from a screenwriters head and not any kind of life experience. This is a flat remake.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)****1/2

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is the continuation of the saga started by George Lucas almost forty years ago. Since then the franchise has grown beyond its beginning to crave itself out a huge place in popular culture not only in the United states, but across the globe. There have been dark times for this franchise when it has lost its way (Episodes I, II, and III), but it has continued to thrive with three generations. The Force Awakens signals the start of not only a new trilogy, but new creative forces and new ownership of the Star Wars universe.

The film follows a trio of new characters Poe Dameron, Finn, and Rey (Oscar Isaac, John Boyega, and Daisy Ridley) each coming from a different background, yet they all find themselves on the same quest. Along the way they encounter heroes from the previous films such as Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) as they come in conflict with The First Order, a resurgence of the ideals of the Galactic Empire. Led by the Force wielding Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) they continue terrorizing the galaxy in that classic Imperial way. There are many winks and nods throughout the film that doesn’t seem like blatant fan service except at a few points in the film.

The Force Awakens is the film that we had hoped the prequels would be. The audience genuinely cares about the new characters as opposed to Episodes I, II, and III. People in this film are not as wooden as they were in those films and there are many contribution factors that could affect that fact. Poor acting, poor writing, performing in front of nothing but a green screen probably all contributed to that fact. This film harkens back to nonstop action and adventure that doesn’t turn down at all during its 2 hour and 15 minute running time. The story is a great continuation of Star Wars lore that develops patterns in the story, just like human history. We all keep making the same mistakes over and over again. The question is did we learn from them? That will be seen as this trilogy plays out.

Return of the Jedi (1983)****1/2

After a cliff hanger ending in The Empire Strikes Back, the Star Wars (original) Trilogy concludes with Return of the Jedi, a film that while great and entertaining, doesn’t quite live up to the majesty of the previous two installments.

The film opens with our heroes led by Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) attempting to rescue Han Solo (Harrison Ford) from overgrown slug Jabba The Hutt. Meanwhile, the Empire have begun construction on another Death Star that will culminate in a three front battle on the forest moon of Endor, in space, and the final confrontation between father and son with the Emperor (Ian McDiarmid) as an active audience.

Return of the Jedi is a fine adventure film, full of fun and excitement. The problem really boils down to the fact that it seems that the story seems to rehash the previous two entries, especially the first one. The Cantina scene returns with the numerous alien creatures hanging around Jabba’s palace. The Death Star once again becomes the powerful weapon that can destroy the Rebellion. I would add the final duel between Luke and Darth Vader, but this time it feels different. Luke has matured into a contemplating Jedi, not a head strong young man just wanting to save his friends. There is a nice arc to each character in this film. Luke’s arc from farm boy to the last of the Jedi Knights. Han from smuggler to war hero. Leia (Carrie Fisher) no longer seeming as regal, but more revolutionary. It’s magnificent that this trilogy actually has character grow instead of being set personalities, never to change. Once again, praise must be heaped on writer Lawrence Kasdan. This may be George Lucas’ story, but Kasdan makes it a living piece. 

Even though the film isn’t as great as Star Wars or Empire, Return of the Jedi is a fitting end to the original trilogy and the saga up to that point. Conclusions usually aren’t the greatest things to see, but with Return of the Jedi the film makers do this franchise justice. A fitting ending for the adventurous characters created by George Lucas.

The Empire Strikes Back (1980)*****

Before I start I should let everyone know that this is my favorite film of all time. So I will probably be gushing for most of the following paragraphs.

It’s such a rarity for a sequel to be a better film than the original. The Bride of Frankenstein was probably the first. Recently The Dark Knight comes to mind. When it comes to The Empire Strikes Back that idea that a follow up could be a better film than the first one is expanded to another level entirely. Once again, the film is sprinkled with visions of the past on top of an already nostalgic ride.

The first act of the film follows out heroes from the first film being beaten by the evil Empire at their home base on the remote ice world of Hoth. Scattered for most of the film Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) along with their sidekicks attempt to outwit not only the Empire, but bounty hunters working for the Empire and Solo’s debtor Jabba The Hutt. Meanwhile Luke Skywalker (Mark Hammill) travels to a swamp world known as Dagobah to train with the Jedi master Yoda (Frank Oz). All the while Darth Vader (David Prowse/James Earl Jones) is working to capture Skywalker and turn him to the dark side as an ally.

Amazingly, director Irwin Kerschner and writer Lawrence Kasdan are able to squeeze more adventure out of the franchise in this installment. The film hits the ground running and doesn’t let up for the next two hours as a race across the galaxy, with slow down during Luke’s training that keep the audience engaged by the small Jedi master. There is a balance throughout the film of adventure, romance, intrigue, and tragedy. No spoilers, but this film does not end as happily as the last. Like a typical second act, it throws its characters in the worst possible scenario leaving the audience wanting to see if their heroes can get out of this one.

The question that will always be debated as long as cinema and Star Wars is relevant is whether Empire is superior to Star Wars. As an upgrade in storytelling and effects it truly is. Instead of milking the film and the mega franchise it created, Empire builds on the mighty foundations set by that film from the summer of 1977. The age old pieces of building a second adventure that plunges their heroes in danger is as old as fiction is itself. In a nutshell, we were introduced to these characters in Star Wars. The Empire Strikes Back is the film in which we learned to love them, with all their little quirks and all. This film is an unexpected triumph that really cemented the entire franchise into popular culture. Yes, it’s my favorite film. Yes, I do consider it a masterpiece. 

Star Wars (1977) *****

Star Wars changed everything. That could be the review of the film. Nothing else needs to be said, but I will. It changed how movies were made, merchandise, released, controlled. Everything. Film was going into a transition period that saw the collapse of the huge studio systems into small, independent, personal films. A summer blockbuster was a foreign animal. The 1970’s were a decade of sadness and disgust in far more than Hollywood films. Society dictated what film presented on the screen in 1977. Star Wars changed that. It was ok to escape. It is a watershed moment in film history, commercial history, and holds a place in billions of lives across the globe. Billions. Those are religion numbers and people actively practice it.

The scaled down plot of the film is simple. A princess in danger. A young farm boy with no sights of a future is wrapped up in an adventure with an old wizard, a scoundrel, and sidekicks to stop the evil that has engulfed the galaxy. It’s all there and it was so different in 1977. In a decade that gave us Straw Dogs, Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon, and all of those disaster films Star Wars was a breath of fresh air. It was a turning point for the dark view of American society in the 1970’s. It harkens back to yesterday when heroes were heroes and villains were villains. A simpler time. Lines were not blended at that time.

The acting and the dialogue aren’t the greatest with Harrison Ford delivering the best performance, but director George Lucas creates a world out of nothing but ancient religious beliefs. It carries on more than it’s movie serial tradition, but an ideal of being one with the world. It wasn’t just the marketing that pushed this film from beyond the silver screen, but those universal ideas of accepting what is good and shunning the evil that we encounter in our lives. I’m getting really deep on this so bare with me.

Overall, Star Wars is a magnificent film that captures not just one spirit, but multiple ideals from throughout history. There’s thousands of years of beliefs rolled up into 125 minutes of intergalactic adventure. Of course Star Wars is a phenomenon, but when you get back to the basics of the film itself it stands on its own and has become a high standard that other filmmakers try to achieve

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) ***1/2

 Revenge of the Sith is the last lap of the muddy track known as the Star wars prequels. The previous two installments had left so much to be desired that the bar was set very low when this film premiered over a decade ago. Ironically, this is the film that we knew most of the plot going in if you had seen the original Star Wars films. Would the film mimic what our minds had teased us with for the decades after the original trilogy ended? That was the biggest mystery of Episode III.

The film is set five years after Attack of the Clones with Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christansen) are heroes of the Republic in their fight against the Separatists led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and General Grievous. The film opens with them heroically saving Supreme Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) in an epic space battle that really does mesmerize as an opening scene, especially compared to the previous two films. The film  then follows Anakin’s fall from grace as he needs to protect his secret pregnant wife Padme (Natalie Portman) from the death he sees in his dreams.

As with the previous two films, Revenge of the Sith falls victim to Lucas not being able to connect the dots of his story. Where this film differs from them is that the dots are bigger and fill a larger spectrum of the narrative, making it more tolerable to enjoy. There are still cringe worthy moments of acting that either pain you or make you chuckle inside, but there have been improvements. Sadly, this comes during the final piece of the saga that is in Lucas’ hands. It’s an action packed story with a dual finish that sets up everything that comes after it (while leaving plot holes that makes us wonder if George has even watched any of the original films since their release). It is a better film than the first two, but is it the equivalent to the original three? No, not really. It’s more a nostalgia piece for those films as it bridges this vision to the original films three decades ago.

Of course one has to wonder whether this film is better because we had such low expectations after getting burned the last two times. It’s like a kid who is a straight D student scoring a B and being excited by it. Progress! Maybe there is hope, but this was the final film and we will never know if George Lucas found his way again. Of course this film is filled with CGI and it does distract from the story, but the audience has learned to block that out by now. The prequel trilogy does end on a high note… for the prequel trilogy. Revenge of the Sith serves as the bridge that brings everything together. It’s not the sturdiest structure, but it does the job and keeps the audience enthralled during most of the film. An improvement, but far below what the audience would have expected in 1999. In 2005 the audiences is pleasantly surprised by the film, in a good way. A decent film, but not a good Star wars film.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) **1/2

The Phantom Menace was a film that proved that Star Wars could flub. Big time. As three years clicked by we thought that the next one will be better. The nest one has to be better. Production stills and trailers and merchandise teased us with a film that could capture the feeling of the original saga. It didn't happen.

Attack of the Clones is set 10 years after the events of The Phantom Menace. Obi-Wan (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin (Hayden Christensen) are master and apprentice in the Jedi Order. They've been given the assignment of finding the assassin of Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman). Anakin and Padme fall for each other and there's a battle with these mysterious clones from the title ordered years ago by a thought to be dead Jedi.

Just trying to describe the plot is exhausting. There is so much thrown at you that it's like throwing bricks at a ladybug in the front yard. There isn't as much political intrigue as in the last film, but it's been replaced by an enormous collection of CGI collections and over the top situations. By over the top I mean that the odds of all of these events falling into place in one film are a number so large I just don't want to deal with it. Kind of like thinking about the plot.

The problem with actually reviewing Attack of the Clones is that I don't know who to blame for the acting. Do I go after the actors themselves or do I attack George Lucas and his feeble attempts at writing dialogue. It is horrendous. It's as course and harsh as the sand Anakin can't shut up about. The scenes where the pair are falling in love are such drivel it hits the brakes on a film where even most of the action sequences can'r save it, as opposed to The Phantom Menace that could pull you back in a little bit. At least Christopher Lee is in it as the antagonist Count Dooku, the only performance worth noting. And maybe Ian McDiarmid. I guess those guys can work thru terrible writing.

Attack of the Clones is a bloated film with no real soul to it. It feels like a mass produced item (which it is at this point) playing fan service with a couple of cool scenes and appearances (Jango Fett and Yoda). Otherwise the film is a disappointment. It isn't worse than The Phantom Menace, but it's not better. It's even. The tone has shifted, nut there isn't anything there to hold on to. This film leaves a "meh" feeling because you know that the real payoff is in the next film. Where Empire succeeds as the middle chapter, this film fails at miserably. This film is yet another disappointment and further discredits the franchise it's a part of.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) **1/2

Ray Park as Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace

I’ve had a saying that I’ve used for almost 20 years now in relation to The Phantom Menace. I compare the film to waking up Christmas morning expecting some great present only to receive socks. Nothing against socks. They have a place and are quite needed, but there’s no flash with it. The same goes for The Phantom Menace, a film that really doesn’t live up to the excitement of the films that came before it.

The film follows the early adventures of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan MacGregor) and Anakin Skywalker (Jake Loyd), the boy found in the Tatoine desert by Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson). In that sentence the film sounds like it would have some potential. Throw in trade routes, treaties, and Jar Jar Binks and you derail any exciting ideas that are out there. Sadly, this is what the film focuses on as it fails in many ways. Bloated with CGI overindulgence and dialogue that is embarrassing the film relies on its action, which it hands out in spoonfuls.

Looking back over 15 years later you can see what a great film this could have been. The opening scenes with the Jedi fighting droids and hiding on the planet of Naboo. The pod race. The ending with three fronts and Darth Maul. If these sections could have been bridged in a better way than this could have been a far superior film than it turned out to be. Why, of why, didn’t we get more Darth Maul when he was plastered on every piece of merchandise back in 1999? There are the parts to a good Star Wars film there, just not enough hardware to pull it together. Would it have compared to the originals? No, but that’s ok. This film was parsecs away from those films (error intended)

What The Phantom Menace represents is the footing that the saga is built on. It’s buried deep underground and doesn’t serve much purpose. It’s there doing its job, even if it’s an ugly mess. Kind of like socks. I’ve softened a bit on the film, but I can’t call it anything more than average. That’s it. An average film equals a horrible Star Wars film. Even years later this is still one of the most disappointing films of all time.

Terminator Genisys (2015) **1/2

When I first watched Terminator Genisys I was mesmerized by it, chewing on how it returned to the original film and getting those chills because I thought that I was experiences James Cameron's 1984 masterpiece again. The thing about T:G is that once it's over and you're able to digest what you've just witnessed, you realize that there really wasn't as much there as you thought. We can call it celluloid fast food if you will. Comfort food taking you back to a time when Terminator films were good.

The film opens by giving us a physical representation of the night John Connor (Jason Clarke) sent (or is it sends) Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor. We get to relive all those early scenes when Reese and the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 arrive in Reagan era Los Angeles, but things have suddenly changed. Our favorite cyborg killing machine is met and destroyed by an aging Terminator unit (Arnold Schwatzenegger) and Sarah Connor is already a bad ass that saves Reese's life. And this time there's a liquid metal T-1000 on their tail, too. It seems that things happened before 1984 that changed everything and Reese and Sarah time travel to 2017 to stop what amounts to an over hyped app that will eventually become SkyNet, the evil computing system of the series.

There are many issues with this film and it's hard to find a place to begin addressing them, but we can start with casting. Emily Clarke delivers an acceptable performance as the rebooted Sarah Connor, Arnold returns to his signature role, even though he is goofy at some points that soils the memories of the original film, and J.K. Simmons is an underused treasure. That's the good, now let's get to the bad. Jai Courtney really doesn't feel like Kyle Reese. I can't blame it on me trying to place him in Michael Biehn's role since I can accept Emily Clarke in her role. He just doesn't feel right and it pulls you out of the film, but not as much as Jason Clarke's portrayal of resistance leader John Connor. Out of the numerous actors to play the part I would have to vote him the worst. The Terminators have more humanity to them than his performance and he is totally unbelievable as a man that would rally men and women to die for him. That performance is a mess.

As is the timeline, which becomes another issue. The viewer spends a large hunk of the movie trying to figure out how events and dates could have changed so drastically since we now know that what would have happened if events (such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day) did not occur. It makes you think, but not in a good way. It's very annoying and pulls you straight out of the film because you start looking for plot holes. The film ignores 3 and 4, which it should.

Overall TG is an average sci-fi action film that builds on being part of the Terminator franchise. You remember what you loved about the original film and bask in its ghostly glow for a good portion of this film, but you later reconsider what you saw and it begins to fall flat as you realize that this isn't James Cameron's first film, but a re-imagining that Hollywood loves to produced to keep the franchise and $$$ alive. Will a person rewatch this film? Yes, but for all the wrong reasons. It's not because it's a great film, but more a morbid curiosity on whether it will create those feelings again or if the viewer will only be duped once.

The Conversation (1974) *****

Between The Godfather and The Godfather Part II Francis Ford Coppola made a film developed from an idea he had almost a decade earlier. Ironically, the main idea behind the film (tape recording) would be the focal point of one of the worst scandals in American history that was going down as this film was being produced and released.

The Conversation is about surveillance expert Harry Caul (Gene Hackman), who is a legend in his field, but has skeletons in his closet. Supported by his assistant Stan (the always great John Cazale) Harry has been hired to record and report on a couple (Cindy Williams and Fredrick Forrest) by a man only known as The Director (Robert Duvall). As the job progresses Harry begins to worry about what the consequences of the information he's about to deliver will have on the parties lives based on an incident from his past that still haunts him.

Hackman plays Caul as a very low key individual that doesn't want any attention, yet is the center of attention in his little world of watching and listening. He's an anxious little man that knows his business and understands who to operate his personal life to keep it out of his work life. Hackman had hit it big by this point and The Conversation really is a change of pace compared to some of hos other work, mainly looking at The French Connection.

The other surprising standout in the film is Harrison Ford as Martin Stett, the threatening thug like individual that is the barrier between the world and The Director. Ford's performance is very confrontational, but he doesn't really do anything to give you a reason to fear him. It's all in your head.

The main theme of The Conversation is paranoia. The thing is that the paranoia belongs to Harry Caul. He's the one that's watching people, but he's the most fearful in the film. From the early moments of the movie you see how Harry dictates his entire life to maintain his privacy and you get to the point that you wonder if maybe some of this fear is in his head, held up by Harry having some delusions leading him to fear that history was going to repeat itself.

Where the two Godfather films were expansive films traveling over thousands of miles and involving decades. they're open and airy and give you plenty of room to breathe. The Conversation is the opposite. It's a claustrophobic film that has you breathing heavy from the fear of what's closing in on us. The stinger on all of this is that even though there is no one nearby, you are being held close with the technology that lets you see and hear from elsewhere, which ironically has become even more prevalent forty years later with our advances in tech. The film itself serves as another Coppola classic from his prime era in the 1970's It's a great film that kind of gets pushed away due to the Godfather films. 70's grit at its finest, almost symbolizing the greatness of the cinema of the era.

Chappie (2015) ***1/2

Neill Blomkamp films tend to tread on that future that is just beyond our reach. Looking at previous work, such as District 9, it could be a few months or decades into the future. The present is there, but the cusp of the next big thing exists. It may not be as bleak as some, but there still is a horrifying ingredient of the evil that men do. And yes, it is generally man that commits the heinous act.

In Johannesburg,  crime has spiraled out of control. As a reaction to the rise in illegal activities the police enlist the help of robotic officers. I know what you’re thinking: Robocop. But that’s not where this film goes. It’s merely a cornerstone to the overall story, plus these robots are more agile than Robocop. Think about comparing an elephant to a jaguar. These machines are highly successful and leads their creator (Dev Patel) to obsessively work on a new program that defines consciousness. After “requisitioning” a unit that is going to the scrap heap as a test subject, the creator uploads his software and life begins for Chappie (Sharlto Copley), but not before he’s taken by a group of criminals that had their eye on The Creator to turn off the robots so that they can commit crimes without their interference. The proceeding film follows Chappie as he quickly grows while be influenced not only by his environment, but the rules set down by The Creator.

Obviously, you’re feeling some Biblical references with The Creator and Chappie’s struggle with following his orders and adapting to the environment he lives in, particularly the influence of Mommy and Daddy(Yolandi Visser and Ninja). There is a religious arc throughout the film as the character falls and rises again. There is a definite District 9 feel to the piece that harkens back to that fine film. I will warn you that if you’re seeing this title thinking that it’s a children’s film, you will be sorely mistaken. This is far from it, even with the Short Circuitesque plot. Hugh jackman plays a nemesis that does things to our protagonist that goes way beyond the norm, more like torture, Steer kids away.

Blomkamp has delivered another emotional rollercoaster film that encourages the viewer to think about our society right now, from the viewpoint of a possible future. It also delves into the idea of the meaning of life, but with a refreshing take. Chappie doesn’t try to answer the question of what is the meaning of life, but it follows the process of an individual learning what that really is and that’s really the whole essence of this film. Though it has some flaws, it’s a fine film that delivers some introspection when least expected. ***1/2

Zombie Nightmare (1987) 1/2

He's the hero Gotham deserves.

Zombie Nightmare is about a softball player who is hit by a car and killed. He is then brought back to life by a voodoo priestess. He takes out his revenge on those who killed him. There are cops involved and some stuff. 

Zombie Nightmare is a film more terrible than the description I just wrote, a film so poorly executed, written, directed, and acted that it has become the stuff of legend for almost thirty years. When I stumbled on this film I didn't know MST3K had riffed it long ago, which the filmmakers should be thankful for because that means it shall live forever, if not in the way they wanted.

Adam West gets top billing. He's in the film less than 10 minutes. Motorhead get a major credit for music. The Ace of Spades plays over the credits with the rest of the soundtrack being mid '80's death metal of the blech sort. Tia Carrere, pre Wayne's World is in this and actually gets screen time, but is not the vixen on the cover of the film. 

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's actually talk about the movie. If you like your movies padded then this is the one for you. We get some driving, some more driving, a mediocre chase in a gym, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's the typical stuff that pads a movie from student film to feature length. 

The acting? Well, when Adam West is your best actor, that about sums it up.

Ugh, this movie is so bad I don't even want to talk about it anymore. The writing sucks, the plot twist is predictable, and the only meaningful experience you can have with this film is making fun of it. 

I think I've written a review as terrible as the film.

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

Apocalyptic films are usually a hit or miss subject. Many are forgettable or cliched to the point of being one big joke, kind of like the film within the film by the Mackenzie brothers in Strange Brew. Some films get it really right, while others get it really, really wrong with disastrous and silly results.

When one thinks of the modern apocalyptic film the template for that genre of cinema was crafted by George Miller. His major debut Mad Max (1979) was less apocalyptic and more a '70's exploitation car chase flick sent to hell and back, making the film an achievement in film making. It pushed the envelope at the end of the decade.

It would be the sequel to that film, Mad Max 2 or The Road Warrior here in the states, that would define Miller's vision of the world beyond the end, the people that lived after the "event". The Road Warrior is one of those rare films that exceeds its predecessor with a story that, while simple, is presented in a way that is unforgettable and burns itself into your psyche.

We'll skip Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. It has its place and its moments, but is really a film that Miller cared very little about as he left the world of Max for thirty years.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a return to the supercharged film that The Road Warrior happened to be. Max (Tom Hardy) once again runs afoul of a mutant clan using slave labor and water to control their little piece of a broken world. Led by Immortan Joe (played by Hugh Keayes-Byrne, who played the Toe Cutter in the original film) a chase ensues after  Furiosa (Charlize Theron in an awesome performance) steals a commodity that is sacred to the enraged leader.

A simple story if there ever was one, but this goes beyond that. Fury Road is open to close action with very little time to catch your breath. Some films are called a roller coaster ride, that age old cliche that they slap on posters. Fury Road is like going into hell  without any looking back. It's funny that a film set in a fictional version of our world can draw so many parallels to life itself.

What really stands out in Fury Road is the role of women. For a film titled Mad Max, the strongest character in the film is Furiosa, a warrior that does not give up, leading her ironic cargo to a promised land that may or may not exist. Distant memories or wishful thinking? There are moments when Max feels like a side character and this is Furiosa's movie. It's an amazing thing to see in film where a woman is neither a pawn nor a gimmick, but an integral piece to the film. She is the center that everything about Fury Road revolves around.

I was more than sketchy when I heard that another Mad Max film was on the way. So many returns in the last decade have floundered over the indulgences of these sequels and reboots. It's about a 50/50 split in that arena. Fury Road is probably the best of the bunch and is probably one of the best films of 2015 so far. It is a credit to credit masterpiece that really cuts at the other blockbusters of this year and the almost stagnant world of super hero movies. Fury Road is, ironically, a breath of fresh air in a cinematic universe that tends to regurgitate last years product. Dare I say that this film is Miller's masterpiece, possibly even surpassing The Road Warrior? I don't know, but I really, REALLY want to watch it again.

Jurassic World (2015) ***1/2

Chris Pratt and friends storm into battle in Jurassic World.

In a year that is bound to be full of nostalgia (Terminator in July, Bond in November, Star Wars in December) this film has become the unexpected juggernaut of Summer 2015 and continues to rake in the dough at extraordinary rates. The fact that the Jurassic Park franchise has been lackluster at best since the great original film makes the success of this film all the more striking. 

It's been over 20 years since that terrible day when John Hammond's creation crashed into itself and dashed all of the hopes and dreams detailed in the first half of the original film. The park is closed, for good, or so we thought. Multiple deaths and general mayhem couldn't keep a great money making idea down and for the last two decades Jurassic World has been open for business, built on the corpse of the original park.

At this point the whole idea of dinosaurs actually being alive has become old and passe', so there is a need to up the ante so to speak. That means that, like the original film, it's time to play with our handy genetics set and create dinosaurs that never existed. Hybrids developed my man, making us more god-like than in the original film. Obviously, this becomes a huge mistake as our new creature is developed too well. Add in a plot that concerns weaponizing dinosaurs and you have your film ladies and gentlemen. 

Jurassic World is a great summer flick. It's what every summer needs and sometimes doesn't get, which is happening a lot lately. It's an action packed spectacle that finally carries on the tradition of the first film (but doesn't surpass that film). There are some problems with the film, mainly in the sub plot with the military that is so predictable it's boring, but otherwise the film stands up well and won't disappoint fans of the original film or newcomers to the franchise. Thankfully, it appears that this film ignores what happened in the second and third films.

Which begs the question of how will they follow up this film. The humongous amount of money this film has made makes a sequel inevitable, but the issue is that there isn't much you can do with the subject matter without rehashing one of the awful sequels or making an unrealistic sequel. But the film is about dinosaurs, so who cares.

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For *

It's been close to 10 years since Robert Rodriguez brought us Frank Miller's vision of urban decay and decadence to the big screen with the original Sin City (apparently I have never reviewed Sin City, but I did review the bastard cousin of these films here). The original film held the story together, even though it diverged into separate tangents, zig zagging like a runaway gunfight. It's not a masterpiece, but it is a great example of comic/film cinema that really represents the heart of Frank Miller's work.

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (we'll call it Sin City 2 from here on out) is quite frankly a mess, which is strange since this film has been in development from the moment the first film hit theaters. Many of the same characters from the original film return to cause havoc and mayhem in Basin City. There are some new faces and recasts, but the general idea is the same. A collection of stories all tied together into a bigger picture. I won't go into details, but it's the same concepts as the first film. They're just executed very poorly.

I've seen the first film at least half a dozen times, recently watching it about a month before. While watching Sin City 2 I was lost on where this event fell into the chronology of the first film and wondering if there was a plot hole or not. I like movies that make you think, but when I'm sitting there trying to figure out if this is a filmmaker screw up it really dampens the experience of watching the film.

The film cliches itself constantly. Within the first hour three characters are thrown from a moving car. It turns into a running joke and as the film continued on it was almost like I was watching a parody of the first film. What I hoped was going to be a continuation of the story Miller had created turned into a tedious experience that just had me hoping for the end. This turned into one of the worst films of the year and a huge disappointment for me.

I don't know if it was the long length of time it took to get this film made or the need to present it in 3-D (ugh) or poor film making in general, but Sin City 2 is a stinker. If you have never seen the first film or even haven't visited it lately, you will be lost in the convoluted story that literally goes nowhere. If you're a fan of the previous film you will be disappointed.