Short Term !2

It's sad to say that most movies now-a-days films have a predictable formula. Whether it be romance, horror, action or chick-flick, almost all the movies now have been seen. That doesn't make them bad but a lot of audiences have been wanting to sick their teeth into something where they are unable to predict the out come. That's where Short Term 12 comes in. This film features Brie Larsen as Grace-the lead character who is in charge of guiding the at-risk teens in the foster home in which she and her fiancee, Mason, work. Grace has a bit of a troubled past like the kids she looks after and she's managed to keep it down and in the past until a young girl with problems similar to the ones she's trying to hide checks into the facility. This girl is named Jayden and she is the typical angsty teen, but the subtle hints she leaves Grace about her troubled home life causes Grace to sit back and examine her own situation that she's tried to push away for years.
I believe the best thing this movie has going for it is it's use of camera work. The camera here wouldn't use any tripod or stabilizer so the camera movement makes you, the viewer, standing there with characters moving. We instantly realize this with the opening which involves one of the inhabitants of Shot Term 12 trying to make a break for it. The running feels real due to the camera adopting a hand-held motion. The camera movement also works when there is nothing really going on in the scene. For example, the scene where Jayden is trying to explain to Grace, through symbolism, about her abusive father. It's never too ditsracting and somehow never unnoticable but in a good way.
One film that didn't use shakey cam well was "Hunger Games"

This entire movie makes me want to throw up into my popcorn. It tries to simulate the fast shakey movement of an action see so it comes out all blurry but surprise, surprise, we actually want to see the action sequences.

MYST #3: MAD MAX: Fury Road "Mario Kart from Hell"

The role Mel Gibson was too "mad" to play.

From the director that brought you colorful, family friendly films such as Happy Feet and Babe: Pig in the City. . . Comes a masterpiece of hand-crafted, death and destruction that takes place in HELL on Earth! 

. . .wait a minute . . .?

MAD MAX: Fury Road

The fourth installment in the Mad Max franchise directed by George Miller, the film is set in a future desert wasteland where gasoline and water are scarce commodities. It follows Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy), who joins forces with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) to flee from cult leader Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and his army in an armoured tanker truck, which leads to a lengthy road battle. The film also features Nicholas Hoult, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Zoë Kravitz, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton.

This movie had a lot of build-up to it. With todays films being wall-to-wall CGI, this film uses much for practical effects and realistic shots. However, before I talk about this I'll walk through the story because, honestly, there's not that much. Another thing I would like to mention is that I haven't watched any of the other Mad Max films; I've only seen Fury Road so I am not aware if this is a sequel or reboot.

Our main "Hero" is Max Rockatansky, portrayed by Tom Hardy, who some of you may know as Bane from 'The Dark Knight Rises'.  Max is a silent loner who. . . who. . . honestly there's not much known about his backstory.
So our "other" main protagonist is Imperator Furiosa: played Charlize Theron. Theron was rogue member of the villain, Immortan Joe's, army but she helped his five wives-selected for breeding-escape! Hardy and Theron team up, along with an albino ravager played by Nicholas Holt,  to take the wives to a location called the "Green Place". . . but then they decided to turn around and defeat the villain and free all his slaves. . . THE END 

The film is so simple, yet still so complex to understand.

Now there are 2 aspects of the film that some audience members are displeased with: 1) There's not a lot of explanation and 2) Max doesn't feel like the lead.

The first issue Is correct; Fury Road doesn't go into a lot of detail.  Like I said earlier, Max has hallucinations but we're never explained what they mean. We don't know if we're seeing family, friends or random people he happen to have met. Another huge example is the Guitar Guy . . .

He's a member of the villains army, but he hardly does any fighting. All he does is play that flamethrower guitar. Granted it's one of the most awesome, WTF, testosterone filled- thing i've ever seen in my life, but what the heck is his purpose?
I have a way of looking at it: A lazy film gives you a blank page; something you've seen a million times and a film trying too hard gives you too much where you can't make it out. Fury Road, however, is a like a connect-the-dots. It doesn't give you all the information but it lets you see it for what it is. It allows the viewer to become more engaged because you can connect-the-dots.

Now to address the 2nd issue: Max, surprisingly, doesn't feel like the lead in "Mad Max". Max doesn't have much dialogue and the reasoning for the plot to happen seems more like it's for Charlize Theron's character. This issue I can easily address. I have researched (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) that in many of Georges Millers films, the lead is probably the most boring character--by comparison. That's because the main character of his films are the audiences eyes and ears. What Max is afraid of, we are afraid of. What he is surprised by, we are surprised by.

Definitely the best part about this entire film was the action. All the use of practical effects and lack of CGI was great breath of Fresh air. Just like the original Mad Max, lets hope this film is the beginning to a series of movies that are able to simulate realistic action.