(Mad Max) 

Videoteca do Beto #20

Dirigido por George Miller.

Elenco: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward, Lisa Aldenhoven, David Bracks, Bertrand Cadart, David Cameron, Max Fairchild e Sheila Florence. 

Roteiro: George Miller e James McCausland. 

Produção: Byron Kennedy. 

[Antes de qualquer coisa, gostaria de pedir que só leia esta crítica se já tiver assistido o filme. Para fazer uma análise mais detalhada é necessário citar cenas importantes da trama].

Um pequeno orçamento de 400 mil dólares foi o responsável pela estréia de duas importantes carreiras no cinema mundial, além de gravar na história do cinema o nome desta aventura futurista com um ar decadente, que se tornou cult com o passar dos anos. Mad Max é um filme cheio de adrenalina, com uma densa carga dramática e personagens interessantes. O mundo cruel dominado por gangues retratado no longa serve de pano de fundo para as sensacionais cenas de perseguição na estrada, que se tornaram famosas ao longo dos anos e inspiraram duas continuações (o bom Mad Max 2: A caçada continua e o fraco Mad Max 3: Além da cúpula do trovão).

Num futuro caótico, o mundo foi dominado por gangues que vivem à procura de gasolina. Após o jovem e talentoso policial Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson) matar acidentalmente um integrante de uma perigosa gangue, sua família e seu melhor amigo Goose (Steve Bisley) passam a ser perseguidos e as conseqüências trágicas desta perseguição despertam o pior dos sentimentos em Max, a vingança.

George Miller abusou da criatividade para realizar Mad Max. Como o orçamento do filme era extremamente limitado, muitos carros e motos foram remendados e reutilizados o que, somado às roupas nada convencionais das gangues, contribuiu para criar um visual diferente e atraente. O diretor acertou ao manter o ritmo ágil da narrativa, sem muitos floreios, utilizando criativos planos cheios de estilo nas cenas de perseguição – com a câmera no nível do asfalto, na frente de motos e carros, nos olhos de Max, entre outros – que aumentam ainda mais a alta carga de adrenalina. Em muitas destas cenas, Miller utiliza uma quantidade menor de frames (quadros por segundo) para dar uma sensação maior de velocidade, como na cena em que Max passa pelos motoqueiros e os joga da ponte. Nesta cena, aliás, ele alterna da alta velocidade para a câmera lenta durante a queda dos motoqueiros, mostrando em detalhes o impacto do choque. O diretor também utiliza a câmera para aumentar o suspense, como no plano onde vemos uma mão no tronco da árvore enquanto Jessie caminha até a praia. Toda esta tensa seqüência, desde a praia até a volta pra casa, passando por pombos, um cachorro morto e pelo deficiente Benno (Max Fairchild), culmina com a fuga de carro de Jessie (Joanne Samuel, em atuação que não compromete) e May (Sheila Florence) para a estrada, onde a tragédia se consumará. E nesta cena, que é a de maior impacto no espectador, Miller nos poupa ao mostrar um plano subjetivo, com a bola e o tênis do bebê na estrada indicando o resultado trágico. E se o resultado já seria trágico naturalmente, soa ainda mais dolorido porque o bom roteiro do próprio George Miller, auxiliado por James McCausland, acerta ao nos envolver no relacionamento cheio de amor e carinho de Max e Jessie. O impacto do drama vivido por Max após o ataque à sua família é maior justamente porque sentimos simpatia pelo casal. Também direto e sem muitos rodeios, o roteiro funciona perfeitamente, pecando apenas no terceiro ato, que é curto demais. Culpa também da montagem de Cliff Hayes e Tony Paterson, que por outro lado, acerta em cheio nas cenas de perseguição na estrada, criando seqüências de tirar o fôlego. A direção de fotografia de David Eggby explora ao máximo a beleza das estradas australianas e cria um visual quente e seco, aproveitando o maravilhoso brilho do sol naquele país. Finalizando a parte técnica, merece destaque a qualidade do som, principalmente na estrada com o barulho das motos e dos carros, e da trilha sonora de Brian May, rápida, alucinada e perfeita para aquele mundo.

O ataque ao jovem casal na estrada mostra o perigo que aquela gangue de motoqueiros representa. Malucos e arruaceiros, estes nômades não tem piedade de ninguém. A insanidade do grupo fica ainda mais evidente na cena em que Jessie vai comprar sorvete, quando todos partem como animais que cercam a presa para cima da moça, até que ela se aproveita do interesse do líder da gangue para se livrar dele e escapar. O próximo encontro entre eles só confirma a crueldade destes vilões. E mesmo que quisessem mudar este comportamento não poderiam, como fica evidente quando um dos motoqueiros se recusa a matar Goose da forma que seu líder queria, mas é obrigado a fazê-lo para evitar ser assassinado por eles. Por outro lado, as fracas interpretações de praticamente todos os atores do grupo prejudicam o tom ameaçador da gangue, que poderia soar muito mais perigosa e assustadora. O visual dos bandidos é muito mais assustador que eles próprios.

Para que “Mad Max” realmente funcionasse, seria necessário um personagem principal carismático, e Miller acertou em cheio na escolha. Desde sua excelente introdução (o diretor cria um suspense para lentamente revelar seu rosto, mostrando inicialmente as botas, óculos e luvas pretas) nos identificamos com Max, um policial destemido que não foge do choque e provoca a morte do até então temível “Dark Knight”. Vivido com competência por Mel Gibson, Max é uma pessoa simples, apaixonada pelo que faz, e que ama sua família. O ator é talentoso ao transmitir esta paixão de Max pela esposa, como podemos observar na bela cena em que, deitado na grama com Jessie, tenta dizer o quanto à ama usando como exemplo sua dificuldade em demonstrar afeto pelo falecido pai quando ainda era criança. Por outro lado, Max é também uma pessoa destemida e que gosta da adrenalina da estrada. Seu diálogo com Fifi Macafee (Roger Ward) deixa claro que ele está começando a gostar daquilo tudo e, se continuar nesta profissão, ficará tão louco quanto os baderneiros motoqueiros. Esta perigosa mistura de paixão e loucura o torna uma bomba relógio, pronta pra explodir caso algo aconteça às pessoas que ama. E a tragédia acontece, transformando Max no pior dos inimigos para aquela gangue, aquele que não tem mais nada a perder. O plano em que Max olha fixamente para a máscara do monstro é bastante simbólico, já que agora, sem a mulher, o filho e seu melhor amigo, ele se tornou o próprio monstro.

Além das excelentes cenas de perseguição que são um prato cheio para quem gosta de carros, colabora para o sucesso do filme (e o status de cult alcançado ao logo dos anos) o árido e sujo mundo futurista criado pela boa Direção de Arte de Jon Dowding (“Velocidade é só uma questão de dinheiro. Quão rápido você pode ir?” é a interessante frase de uma borracharia). Mais importante ainda são os excêntricos figurinos dos motoqueiros criados por Clare Griffin. Os figurinos, aliás, também tem função dramática no filme, pois indicam o estado psicológico de Max. Inicialmente, ele se veste muitas vezes de branco, colocando o preto somente pra trabalhar. Mas depois da morte de sua família, Max não abandona o preto, refletindo a escuridão que tomou conta de sua vida. E até mesmo o carro de perseguição colabora. Inicialmente utilizando o Interceptor amarelo, Max muda para o carro completamente preto na seqüência final. E aqui, Gibson também é competente ao retratar com o olhar a angústia, fúria e sede de vingança de Max.

Vingança, aliás, é o tema principal de “Mad Max”. O filme utiliza a vingança pessoal do policial como pano de fundo para as sensacionais cenas de perseguição. E mesmo que esta violência “justificada” não seja algo que eu, racionalmente, considere correto, é inegável que julgar a reação de Max ao enorme sofrimento que sentia seria leviano e hipócrita. Desta forma, ele parte sem medir conseqüências em busca da vingança, e o espectador torce por ele. Vale notar também como o modo cruel que Max faz sua última vítima inspirou um filme recente de bastante sucesso, com a sugestão de utilizar a serra como forma de escapar da morte.

O visual criativo e original se tornou um clássico com o passar dos anos, assim como as cenas em alta velocidade. Repleto de adrenalina, com um personagem carismático e cenas de perseguição de tirar o fôlego, “Max Mad” é um exemplo de que mesmo com orçamento baixo é possível fazer bons filmes, desde que se tenha talento para isto. Felizmente, este é o caso da dupla George Miller e Mel Gibson.

Texto publicado em 28 de Novembro de 2009 por Roberto Siqueira

- “The Best of the Decade Project” is an ongoing series of essays written by Match Cuts and The Filmist concerning the finest films of the last ten years.

What’s that, up on the hill-top?

We’re coming down to the tail-end of this project, now. The big three – the chart-toppers, the blind-siders. And, coincidently, also the hardest three to write about. And, in the whole short history of this site, I don’t think there’s one film-maker I’ve written more about than Australia’s own Dr. George Miller. How do you even introduce the guy? Myself, I’m still not quite certain, as the following paragraph will no doubt reiterate. The last of cinema’s thoroughly modern myth-makers – those implicit, anthropological followers of Campbell and Jung, before George Lucas arrived and gunked up the works -  and a college lecturer on the indelible powers of those myths on our collectives psyches and their places in modern cinema, in his spare time. The single-handed spokesman for Australia’s burgeoning film industry, and their self-proclaimed answer to our own Steven Spielberg – although, that’s an arguable comparison, I think. Here is a director whose output has equaled one film in the past ten years – and, just one other film eight years before that; much like his contemporary Ridley Scott, his is a constant and laborious refining process, with the film here in question having taken the full eight years to fully realize. Of course, it probably didn’t help that after the production of Witches of Eastwick with Jon “hey, let’s have a giant mechanical spider in the third act” Peters, he’d been put of off Hollywood and directing in general for several years, only cautiously returning in the early nineties with Lorenzo’s Oil, but I digress. Within these films, despite the wide berth between their respective releases, there is one constant, underlying story, moving through different contexts, cultures and faces, out of thousands – whether man or penguin, woman or pig – conveyed through the ultimately humanitarian eye of a physician.

Happy Feet, like the Mad Max films and Babe: Pig In the City, begins with an expansive, mythological vision of a microcosmic world in the midst of great transition. The film begins quietly, in space, which will becomes a constant visual motif throughout the course of the film. A wide, vast cosmos is spread before us, like a shot from the Hubble – a nebula. And, in the middle of it, the faintest of familiar outlines – a mother penguin, her head bent down toward her young. At first, all we hear is the softest of voices behind the stars – a slow cover of The Beatles’ “Golden Slumbers.” And, then we begin to descend – down toward the Earth, as the noise begins to build. The planet takes center frame, spinning until Antarctica is at the top.  And, it’s here, in these first thirty minutes, that the tone – or tones – of the film solidifies, constantly shifting from the serene and light-hearted into the sudden and potently mythological. From the parents of the main character Mumble meeting in a relatively bright unity of song, and into the huddle of the males in the harsh, bleak red light of the setting sun, set against the primeval chants of the colony Elders in praise of their food god, whose visage appears above them in the swirling winds. The juxtaposition of these two scenes together, and how they relate and reflect off of each other, epitomizes Miller’s use of tone for the rest of the film, with a slight emphasis on the latter aspect.

And, this is a mythic tale, fully realized – and, like Miller’s Mad Max films, intently so.  Always, with the exception of the first Mad Max film, his movies have always been intently focused on the community, and the relationship of the outsider to that community; the outsider who becomes, in his words, an “angel of change.” Here, the world and the community at the center of his story isn’t quite as picturesque and water-color storybook as those found in the Babe films, and yet at the same time, it’s not quite as harsh and grim as those on the sand dunes of the Mad Max trilogy.  Here is something entirely other, a fable in the truest sense. Everything in the film leads up to it’s second hour, after Mumble is forcibly excommunicated from his colony, becoming a pariah in the most spiritual sense – and, it’s here that Miller’s film hits its most mythic stride, with an archetypal camera tracking the penguin compadres through sweeping, vast ice-lands in search of the great Other: the much whispered-about “aliens,” the identities of which the film makes no secret about, because that isn’t the point. Here, Miller employs scale in a way that creates an eye-opening dichotomy between the penguins and their environment, always a constant factor – and, moving over them, those shadowy, almost god-like machines from without, breaking through the mist and ice, represented often in a ground sense of wonderment and fear – the mythic composition of the story comes finally full circle as Mumble delves off the ice cliff and into the Unknown, and Lovelace makes a vow to tell his tale, even long after his death. That’s how you do it, Lucas.

More than any of his previous films, Happy Feet is a film that defines its characters in terms of their surroundings – framing it’s characters in against the wide, barren expanse topped by vivid blue skies, and clouds that seem to go on forever. The main character’s father against a sudden and foreboding blue sky,  watching the wives move off into the distance, and into the long, lonely night of winter ahead. Miller’s mastery of environmental mise-en-scene and composition is emphasized most clearly here, in the stark white wastelands of Antarctica. This becomes most obvious in what I consider to be one of the best scenes of the film, where Mumble and his compadres, against the eternally setting  sun, attempt to cross a tundra in the throes of a massive blizzard, only to be constantly pushed back by the winds – shot in widescreen, the scene is really a simple battle to move from the left to the right of the screen, made into a force of wills. Leaning in to each other, bearing the winds, they make their way across – into the dark.

It’s also interesting how well thought out the primal religion of these penguins is – while it acts primarily as allegory, it seems also to have been implicitly crafted to fit into the same kind of naturalistic mold as the one found among the rabbits in Watership Down – it’s a food god they pray to, certainly. And, there’s a reasonable skepticism apparent here and there in Miller’s Thomas Aquinas-esque reconciliation of faith and reason, science and religion, the individualist and the collectivist, represented in the smaller community of the colony, also indicative of his oft-quoted philosophy, cribbed from astrophysicist Paul Davies, that “science is a faster way to god than religion.” There’s a bit of the Carl Sagan here as well, remaining from Miller’s time on the film version of Contact – it isn’t overly cynical about the mythology that holds this penguin community together at the bottom of the world, and it even seems fascinated by it, despite the machinations of it’s Pharisaic Elders. This is a colony that must remain welded together to survive in this harsh wilderness, and indeed, the emperor penguin is the animal most emblematic of collectivism – and, it is this purpose that their mythology serves, as the concrete of their society. At the same time, there’s also a slight unwillingness and uncertainty about it, in hushed whispers at first – which culminates in the zoo sequence near the end of the film, where Mumble steps out of his plastic enclave for the first time and into the white light of the aquarium. And, upon asking where this place is, the only answer he gets is, “You’re in Heaven. Penguin Heaven – and, it’s wherever you want it to be.” It seems more focused on the personal relationships inside of this culture – of Mumble to his father Memphis, particularly, and the continuously developing arc of his father, by itself, as more and more his guilt overwhelms him over the course of the film until, by the end of the film, he finds himself as spiritually dead as Mumble was in the zoo.

Mumble the character is an idealist, as much as Max was a nihilist, and constantly, Miller places this idealism – or naiveté’, some would say – at the behest of a violent and often cruel world. As with all of his films, there’s an emphasis on the essential safety that the community provides, in the wasteland, and the inability of individuals to live outside their environment. The farther away that Mumble gets from his tribe, the more immediately dangerous the world around him seems to become – gradually, the size of the predators pitted against him increases, from a skua bird to a leopard seal to a killer whale – until, he ends up in a zoo, continents away. And it’s here, in this sequence in the zoo that Miller breaks the character down toward his “essential self.” As Matthieu Santelli notes, “the film revives the theme of the Mad Max trilogy and the Babe films, when the crossing of the line becomes inevitable. The danger in Miller’s films always comes from the other side. And, if they walk too far, they may find themselves trapped.” Yet, it’s only there, after months of isolation and being driven toward near-insanity, that he finds what he’s been looking for – just on the other side of the glass. And always, a cautious sort of optimism that acts as the real through-line between this and the latter two Mad Max movies, and everything in between pervades the film, even in its most darkest moments, when the main character finds himself screaming his lungs out at the faces behind the glass, staring down at him.

Music, and rhythm, both take an especially active role in the film, as well – the pinnacle of these penguin’s culture is the “Heartsong,” coming from the natural practice of the Emperor penguin’s mating rituals, represented here in iconic fashion through the use of prior-recorded music – and, it’s through this that we’re informed of much of their world, in more ways than one would think, initially – it becomes Miller’s centralized way of representing the unease growing within the penguins’ community;  along with the use of The Beatles’ “Golden Slumbers” at the beginning of the film, mirroring it and bookending the movie is a rendition of “The End,” from the same album – and, to parallel the religious, almost ‘prophetic,’ subtext of the film, Gloria’s song during the two’s courtship ritual that marks the midpoint of the film is a simultaneously somber and bombastic rendition of Earth, Wind and Fire’s “Boogie Wonderland,” a song about the loss of faith in prayer – and bell-bottom jeans, but I digress. And always, following the character is an almost Gregorian soundtrack, reminiscent of the chant of the Elders in the Huddle sequence near the beginning of the film, and repeated in defiance of the dancing below again near the end. When Mumble is awoken from his dormant egg early on in the film, it’s by the tapping on the shell by baby Gloria. Later on in the film, it’s this same rhythmic tapping, on the glass of the aquarium exhibit, that startles him from his emotional death – and into a rebirth, in a sequence that returns Miller to what he’d found so fascinating about cinema in the first place, images without sound, “visual music” in the clearest sense.

And in keeping with that train of thought, this -  like most of Miller’s films – this is a movie fascinated with the possibilities of cutting – which becomes most apparent in his musical sequences. Musicals have always seemed like the brother or sister to action films, with their collective emphasis on the kinetics of cinema – and here, Miller takes full advantage of that, adapting his headlong, constantly moving, style to the unification of image and music, song and rhythm, voice and dance. In a way, it’s a return to the style of the classical musicals of the forties and fifties, like Stormy Weather or Singin’ In The Rain – I hazard to mention Busby Berkeley, because what most people miss with his musical sequences is that they were entirely meant as pure escapism with little relationship otherwise to anything else in the films they were in, which isn’t the case here – but at the same time, it’s also a furtherance of those ideas, with a cast of thousands, spanning colonies and, in the final sequence, continents. A Blue Angels-esque musical sequence that, for the penguins, represents nothing so much as the equivalent of spring break, a courtship ritual that breaks out of its boundaries, a rebellion against the perched, and a celebration.

The role of Mumble is a three-way composite between Elijah Wood, Alan Lee, and Savion Glover – and, as a tap-dancer myself, it’s Glover’s role as both the character’s feet and the general choreographer of the film that gives the character an almost iconic feel, much like a Babe or a Max, or even an Odone; in contrast to what candy-colored Broadway floss might have come if someone like, say, a Simmy Slyde had been brought on, Glover gives the character an individualized and gradually evolving artistry to the noise he’s creating with his feet – sometimes it’s very “light and bright,” and other times it becomes “real hard and heavy,” to use his own terminology. There’s a real love and respect apparent here for the form, inside the film and out – it isn’t trivialized, and it isn’t made fun of, as most expected it would have been. It’s respected, certainly. And along with the character, the use of dance gradually evolves throughout the film, becoming larger and more unifying – first as a method of personal expression, and then of courtship and love, which is followed by it’s shift into something a bit more primal, a tool of mass rebellion and defiance, against those up on the perch above, who do their best to drown it out with their own ritual noise. And, as the helicopter arrives, all falls silent for a moment – before the penguins begin to move again in unison, following their new leader at the back. And, finally, dance becomes a tool of almost universal communication, as revealed by the final sequence.

There are actually a lot of interesting ways to look at the film – as a religious allegory, as a veiled alien abduction story, or as the meeting of two societies and cultures, the Indians and the Spanish, among them. I remember once, a while back, reading someone’s essay comparison between the film and James Cameron’s The Abyss, and – you know, it does make sense. More simplistically, it could be a love story, a tale of the outcast, or even the gap between the new generation and the old. Or, it could be all of those things. Whatever you consider the film – a piece of children’s cinema in the vane of Golden Age Disney, a new sort of mythic fable from the same class as Martin Rosen’s Watership Down with a sense of humor, or something that sits somewhere in between – there’s no doubt in my mind that it is something indelible, and will remain.

***

Interestingly, in my bits of reading and research about the film, here and there, I came upon an intriguingly early, and unnaturally disturbing, piece of concept art – see what you can make of it.

Like most of the other films on this list, there are a great many articles published examining the film from several other angles, though most of them are French – being the country where the film seems to have demanded the highest degree of respect. Among them are Matiere Focale’s (roughly translated) “Happy Feet: Do We Need A New Hero? (Is There Any Escape From the Noise?)” and, the counterpart to our own CinemaBlend, Critikat’s own look at the film’s editing schemes in relation to Miller’s previous films; finally, there’s Glenn Heath’s own unpublished analysis of the film as a whole in  tandem with Miller’s other works, from which several ideas here and there in the preceding article were sprung, and which hopefully will in the future see the light of day on his own site.

Speaking of ol’ Glenn, his respective #3 entry, David Lynch’s mind-numbing Mullholland Dr., can be found right – over – here.

VERDICT:
7/10 Vegemite Sandwiches

Just one more reason why I need to get off my ass and make my own damn movie already.

Not Quite Hollywood is a documentary about the revolutionary Australian genre exploitation movies that came to rise in the 1960s but never quite made it to the big time and have since been all but forgotten. This isn’t Baz Luhrman and Peter Weir we’re talking about, this is gratuitous sexploitation romps, grisly C-grade horror movies drenched in karo syrup, and some of the most badass car chase action movies you’re likely to ever see.

It’s a pretty fitting title for one utterly insane look back at a whole slew of groundbreaking movies that Hollywood wouldn’t even go near, not even by today’s standards. Chances are you’re in the same boat as me and haven’t heard of 99% percent of these movies outside of Mad Max, but that doesn’t matter, because if things go according to plan, you might just find yourself with pen and paper in hand ready to write the names of these suckers down.

Then again, I can see how this one might not necessarily go according to plan for a lot of people out there. Not only is this a movie about movies you’ve never heard of, but it’s only really catering to all us cinephiles/nerds in the audience as it more or less boils down to people talking about movies for two hours. And while those are two hours I’d gladly spend, I’m not gonna delude myself into believing that this is gonna convert anyone that’s not already part of the congregation.

So for all you out there who are still reading and still interested, here’s what the movie breaks down to.

Not Quite Hollywood is split up into three sections that all provide the audience with a look into what was really going down in Australia when the rest of thought it was all boxing kangaroos and dingoes eating babies.

The first part covers the whole sexploitation genre, and who knew those Aussie’s were such horny bastards. Can’t say that I’ve ever seen such a constant barrage of full-frontal nudity in a movie before, so much so that it could easily pass for softcore porn after a while, so…way to go, Australia, I guess. It gets to be a little much after a while as it’s not exactly glorifying the female body as it is exploiting it, but, man, times were different back then. Pretty interesting in light of the Australian censors nowadays, something that could be said for the next two sections as well.

The second and third parts focus on the horror and action genres. The horror stuff has this early Sam Raimi vibe to it, and even though there’s not a whole lot going for this section, it’s interesting to look at these movies in contrast to what America was putting out at the time. But the action genre…wow. If you’ve seen Mad Max, you’ll understand what I mean. They still don’t make car chases like the Australians did back then, and boy howdy do they stand the test of time. No special effects, overtly dangerous camera angles, complete disregard for personal safety, tons of destruction, super high-octane, and enough badassery to go around to make Vin Diesel piss himself running. Fast and furious my ass.

It’s all really interesting for the most part and some of the commentary had me laughing out loud, but after a while it gets to be a little overwhelming. There’s a lot going on with these movies and in between trying to catch what everyone is saying and the total overstimulation of it all, Not Quite Hollywood sort of ends up being its own worst enemy. And some of us can only listen to people talk about B-movies like they’re golden oldies for oh so long.

Recently I read an interview with one Rob Zombie where he said that Hollywood has turned into a “scared town” that is too afraid to back original movies in lieu of financing another shitty remake that’s going to be box office gold. And you know, Rob is right. As someone who’s had it up to here with all the bullshit that gets released in theaters nowadays just because a frightening amount of people are more than ready to dish out their money on movies that fucking suck, I take a look back on the movies showcased here in Not Quite Hollywood and I think, “What the hell happened?”

Sorry if I’m going off on a bit of a tangent here, but this is one of those movies that gets you thinking, primarily about how ridiculous the so-called “limitations” are that have been put on amateur and veteran filmmakers alike by the producers who only have eyes for the Benjamins. It’s very fitting that Quentin Tarantino is one of the main commentators here, because this is a guy that truly loves movies regardless of their budget and is living proof that you can make effing great movies as long as you just go out and do it.

To say that movies in general have changed a good deal over the course of 40 or 50 years is one disheartening understatement. This is a celebration of filmmakers who had balls, of guys who just went out there and did it regardless of their budget, of movies that are unabashedly lewd, horribly gory, and unanimously crazy, and considering how much green the new Transformers sequel raked in this year, these are indeed qualities to be celebrated. Not Quite Hollywood isn’t for everyone, and sorry for the long review, but if you’re a total movie geek like me and are interested in this kinda stuff, it might just be right up your alley.

Good on ya’!

My husband and I had no original intention to watch this film. But having gone to Aberdeen for Christmas break, and seeing as we had lots of time to kill before our flight home at 19:55, viewing Happy Feet (2006) by George Miller, seemed a good way to pass the time. When the opening sequence dealt card names like Nicole Kidman, Robin Williams, Elijah Wood, Hugh Jackman and Brittany Murphy, I thought we were in for a “full house”. But as the film progressed, I was more and more disappointed…and confused.

The film is set in Antarctica and follows the trials and tribulations of a very conservative colony of penguins. The community is very set in its ways and believes that one cannot be a true penguin if one does not have a unique “heart song”. When two of the colony’s greatest singers, Memphis and Norma Jean, produce an offspring, Mumble, who cannot sing, the colony’s world is turned upside down. Mumble does have a very unique gift though – he can tap dance. But seeing as his gift seems too strange to the community, he is condemned as an outsider and even blamed for the famine they now face. When Mambo is rescued from death by another group of penguins, the Adelie Amigos, he finds the acceptance he longs for. Together they endeavour to find the reason for the looming famine and ask the self-proclaimed wise one, Lovelace, for help. When a plastic ring carrier gets stuck around Lovelace’s neck and threaten his life, Mumble embarks on a heroic adventure to save him from asphyxiation and the rest of his community from famine.

Despite rave reviews about the film from the public and critics, I cannot understand why the film is so popular. I concede – the CGI is flawless and most impressive, but the story did not seem to have a definite, focused or well-thought-out plot line. The progression in what little plot there was, was slow and minimal. The quest of Mambo, Lovelace, Ramon, Lombardo and Nestor at the end seems very rushed. I applaud messages about conservation and environmental issues, but the hurried and fragmented inclusion of this at the end, seemed to me very insincere. It seemed to be included for the sake of being politically correct and I think it is this deliberate and clever inclusion which is the saving grace of the film in the eyes of the public and critics alike.

I think this film was made without much thought or a well-written script, and that the producers behind the film only had the incentive to use graphics to lure children and their parents to the cinema, which would result (as it indeed did) in a box-office success and huge profits in their pockets. Personally, I think the filmmakers were confused about who their target audience is. The stark white landscape does not really seem to hold the attention of the cinema-going children. The choice of songs sung by the penguins also seems unfitting to young children’s sensibilities and rather seems like a constant booty call which one sees on so many television music channels. At times I felt quite uncomfortable with the innuendo – especially with young impressionable children keen to learn songs by heart without understanding the content. I know I am very alone in my opinion, but I left the cinema quite disconcerted and did not really know what to make of the film. And honestly, I still don’t…

INFO

Genre: Animation / Comedy-Drama / Musical
Running time: 109 min
Country: Australia/USA
Language: English
Director: George Miller
Writing credits: George Miller
John Collee
George Miller
Judy Morris
Producers: Bill Miller
George Miller
Doug Mitchell
Music: John Powell
Distributed by: Paramount Vantage
Main Cast:
Mumble – Elijah Wood
Norma Jean – Nicole Kidman
Memphis – Hugh Jackman
Gloria – Brittany Murphy
Ramón – Robin Williams
Lovelace – Robin Williams
Noah the Elder – Hugo Weaving

As we become more and more passionate about the environment, perhapse the most important thing is to instill those same priorities in children and the most exciting and fun way to do that is to share the love of movies.

Indeed, what better way to educate a child to be respectfull towards the world that surrounds him than through cartoons with loveable characters and an interesting story.

Wall-E (2008) and Happy Feet (2006) are examples of environmental movies for children that were both popular and provoked debate amongst the public.

One the one hand, picture the planet without people, without plants, without life of any sort, save a small sized trash compacting robot and a whole lot of trash. This is opening scene of Pixar’s Wall-E (2008).

The story of a little robot that manages to make it to outer space, find love and at the same time the means to save our dying Earth – all in a hard day’s work.

While what’s left of the humanity have turned into robots or rather slugs, orbiting space indefinitely because the earth is inhabitable.

Carried in floating chairs so they don’t have to walk, doing nothing but drink food from a cup and stare at the tv screen they are permanently attached to.

On the other hand, animated drama/comedy Happy Feet depicts the life of free penguins in the Antarctica versus being trapped in a marine park exhibit.

Although director George Miller insists the story didn’t start off as an environmental message, he said: “In Australia, we’re very, very aware of the ozone hole and Antarctica is literally the canary in the coal mine for this stuff. So it sort of had to go in that direction.”

With a final taking of approximatively $198 million in the United States alone, about eight times the figure for the much-discussed Al Gore documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” environmentalists said “Happy Feet” provided a rare chance to spread their messages on global warming, overfishing, and the dangers of oil spills to an audience that doesn’t usually follow public policy.

“The generation that will be seeing this movie, the children, will be the ones facing the critical issues when the big problems are going to happen – possible global fish extinction in 40 to 50 years” for many species, said Matt Rand, director of the marine fish campaign at National Environmental Trust, a Washington-based advocacy group.

With takings of $224 millions in the USA only, Wall- E was an even bigger box-office hit. The movie became a real player in the environmental discussion.

Thanks to it children were interested by what was going on and started asking questions about how we should prevent the apocalyptical vision of the Earth we see in the animated movie. At the end Wall-E became a real learning tool, disguised as a fun, simple love story.

Svetlana Loschatova, mother of 9 year old Yvan said: “After walking out of the movie theater my 9 year old who obviously totally enjoyed the movie said: that was made to teach humans a lesson. I of course pushed him a little further and he explained, we can’t keep being mean to the Earth.”

So let’s hope that there are more environmental friendly movies for kids to come!

part 1

part 2

Mad Max – Oltre la sfera del tuono (Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome) è un film di fantascienza del 1985, diretto da George Miller e George Ogilvie.
È il terzo film della “serie di Mad Max”, ambientato in un futuro post-apocalittico.

Leggi altre notizie su: | Fantascienza | Azione | Avventura | George Miller | George Ogilvie | Mel Gibson | Tina Turner | Angry Anderson

Interceptor (Mad Max) è un film australiano del 1979, diretto da George Miller.
Nella parte del protagonista Max un giovanissimo Mel Gibson, attore che fu lanciato grazie a questo film. Miller girò i due seguiti del film facenti parte del “ciclo di Mad Max”: Interceptor – Il guerriero della strada (1981) e Mad Max – Oltre la sfera del tuono (1985)

Leggi altre notizie su: | Avventura | Fantascienza | George Miller | Mel Gibson | Joanne Samuel

Por mais díficl que seja de acreditar, o quarto filme da franquia Mad Max, vai realmente acontecer e as notícias sobre o projeto não param de surgir. A Variety confirmou que os atores Charlize Theron (Hancock) e o ator Tom Hardy (Band of Brothers), semana passada surgiram boatos de que ambos estariam no longa, mas o diretor George Miller negou a notícia.

Agora resta confirmar se Hardy será o novo protagonista do filme, já que o astro dos três primeiros filmes, Mel Gibson, não deve retornar. Lembrando que o diretor George Miller contou recentemente interessantes novidades sobre o projeto.

Mad Max 4 vai começar a ser rodado em agosto de 2010.

Twilight Zone: The Movie

Director: Joe Dante, John Landis, Steven Spielberg, George Miller.

Guión: John Landis, George Clayton Johnson, Richard Matheson, Jerome Bixby yMelissa Mathison, basado

en la serie creada por Rod Serling

Intérpretes: Dan Aykroyd, Albert Brooks, Vic Morrow, Scatman Crothers, Bill Quinn, Kathleen Quinlan y John Lithgow.

Música: Jerry Goldsmith.

Fotografía: Allen Daviau, John Hora y Stevan Larner

Montaje: Malcolm Campbell, Tina Hirsch,

Michael Kahn, Howard E. Smith

EEUU. 1983. 04 minutos.

Como en los viejos tiempos de la TV.

Entretenida, saludable, lograda puesta al día (a un día de los años ochenta) de las clásicas y estimulantes historias de aquella sobresaliente serie televisiva creada por Rod Serling, The Twilight Zone. Lo peor de esta nostálgica adaptación a pantalla grande de los clásicos capítulos de la mítica serie es que han envejecido mal, mucho peor que sus precedentes televisivos. ¿Por qué? Quizás tenga que ver con los medios materiales y con el propio formato. La película que nos ocupa fue dirigida por cuatro nombres de reconocido prestigio en la industria de aquellos años 80. Las producciones dispusieron de medios, pero los estilemas visuales de aquellos tiempos dejaron una impronta muy profunda en el filme, y, sinceramente, el paso del tiempo ha hecho mella en ellas del mismo modo que en la estética de aquella completa década.

Capítulos

Ello no obsta, digo, la calidad de cada uno de los episodios, cuya visión conjunta depara un acusado contraste que encuentra su razón de ser en el afán por abrazar los grandes temas narrativos contenidos en la serie que homenajean: el intro-homenaje a los seriales de terror (Landis); el segmento del tipo racista que se convierte en víctima literal de su propia intolerancia (Landis); el aliento de la fantasía más edulcorada y bienintencionada (Spielberg); y dos manifestaciones de paranoia, la primera en una parábola con ciertas dosis de apetecible cinismo (el capítulo más juguetón de todos, dirigido por Joe Dante, que paradójicamente encierra un vapuleo a los valores contenidos en la pequeña pantalla), y, por fín, retomando los raíles del género terrorífico, una inquietante variante del tópoi del falso culpable (Miller).

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086491/

http://www.anorakzone.com/tz/

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19830624/REVIEWS/306240301/1023

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone:_The_Movie

http://horasdeoscuridad.blogspot.com/2006/09/resea-twilight-zone-1983.html

http://www.pasadizo.com/peliculas2.jhtml?cod=192&sec=1

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores

Well, well, well. One of these internet rumours turned out to be true. Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy are in negotiations to star in the next Mad Max film, Mad Fax:Fury Road from writer-director George Miller.

According to Heat Vision blog Mel Gibson is not reprising his iconic role of Max Rockatansky.

The new Max is to be Hardy, the British-born actor who was Shinzon, the clone of Capt Picard in Star Trek Nemesis, Handsome Bob in Guy Ritchie’s RocknRolla, Charles Bronson in Bronson and he’s also working on Christopher Nolan’s Inception.

Charlize Theron is playing the female lead, but so far there’s no more info on her character.

Plot details are scarce but supposedly the movie does take place a short while after the story detailed in 1985’s “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome,” which keeps Mad Max relatively young.

A shoot next summer in Australia is being eyed. The movie will be an Australian production which Warner Bros. will distribute.

“Road” has been in the works for more than a decade, with Gibson attached to star at one point. When the project finally began ramping up earlier this spring and summer, Miller began looking at and testing numerous actors who could step into the grim shoes previously worn by Gibson. Sam Worthington was the hot favourite, but it was not to be.

Not sure how I feel about Hardy playing Max. He is a good actor and Bronson shows he can really change for a role. Still it will be good to see a new Mad Max film.

How do you feel about Tom Hardy getting behind the wheel of the last of the V8 Interceptors?

Charlize Theron has signed on to star in, “Mad Max: Fury Road”. UK actor, Tom Hardy who starred in “Black Hawk Down”, will star alongside Theron.

Does this mean a Mad Max movie without Mel Gibson?

The article never said anything about Mel Gibson being in it or not. So I think there is a possibility, that Mel Gibson may have quietly said “yes” to star in it and that they are waiting for the right time to announce Mel for the film. I think this article is a tease, that Mel could be in it.

I don’t know, Tom Hardy, is a very built and buffed guy. He also looks like a young Mel Gibson, unless, Tom Hardy plays Max’s son? A son that Max never knew he had?

Even though there is no confirmation of Mel Gibson returning, I am predicting he will say yes. Mel should be finished with Jodi Foster’s “The Beaver” by now, that’s another clue he could be returning.

Mel would be a fool if he turned this down. I think the film will tank without him.

Variety Reports:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010598.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

Kev

ABC australiana entrevistou o diretor do esperado filme Mad Max 4, George Miller, que revelou importantes novidades sobre o longa.

Miller confirmou que a pré-produção vai começar na semana que vem na Austrália e vai durar dois anos e meio, o diretor explicou que o filme será grandioso e com um enorme número número de cenas de ação. Disse que desde que o primeiro filme foi realizado (em 1979), os filmes de ação mudaram muito e que a equipe pretende dar uma nova visão ao gênero e que serão feitas coisas que nunca foram realizadas antes, por isso esse longo tempo de produção.

Sobre o elenco Miller afirmou que atualmente estão sendo realizados testes, que muitos atores já foram testados, mas ninguém ainda foi escolhido e negou os rumores de que Charlize Theron estaria no elenco. O diretor disse que o ator Mel Gibson não está descartado, mas disse que o astro do filme pode ser qualquer um.

Tomara que Miller consiga realmente dar uma nova vida a franquia e faça um filme decente e não mais uma continuação desnecessária. Se a entrevista já não fosse o bastante, o canal Sky australiano divulgou duas fotos dos carros que serão utilizados no filme, que álias são parecidos com os utilizados nos filmes anteriores, confira:

The first official picture of the new A-Team has been released.

The line-up features Bradley Cooper as Lt. Templeton “Faceman” Peck, Quinton “Rampage” Jackson as Sgt. “B.A.” Baracus, Sharlto Copley as Capt. “Howling Mad” Murdock, and Liam Neeson as John “Hannibal” Smith. The new A-Team movie will be directed by Narc and Smoking Aces helmer Joe Carnahan, and also stars Jessica Biel. The movie will hit cinemas on June 11th 2010.

——————–

Just a few days after it was reported that Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy have been approached to star in George Miller’s fourth Mad Max movie, news emerged in The Daily Telegraph that production on the film will start immediately and that filming will take place in Sydney and around New South Wales. According to the newspapers sources a lot of the work will be done at Redfern’s CarriageWorks and 30 weeks of filming will take place in Broken Hill.

Miller said: “The production agreements have been a long time in the making and Premier Rees and his team have worked like Trojans to ensure this substantial investment comes into this country. Not only does it help fuel the local economy but it means many talented people get a chance to practice their craft and lift their skills.”

CarriageWorks will be used for the development work for the film, as well as working on a sequel to Happy Feet.

Filming is expected to start next year, and it is estimated the whole project will take two-and-a-half years from pre-production to screen. So expect to see something in the cinema Summer 2012.

——————————–

Reports from Ain’t It Cool News is that Star Trek and Transformers scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman are set to produce the adaptation of the Doc Savage comics.

Doc Savage is a heroic-adventure character originally published in American pulp magazines during the 1930s and 1940s. He appeared in several other media formats, including radio, film, and comic books, with his adventures reprinted for modern-day audiences in series of paperback books.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and Lethal Weapon writer Shane Black is set to write the script. Black is currently preparing to write the script but he has decided that Doc Savage needs to have his Fabulous Five (Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Blodgett “Monk” Mayfair, an industrial chemist; Brigadier General Theodore Marley “Ham” Brooks, an accomplished attorney; Colonel John “Renny” Renwick, a construction engineer; Major Thomas J. “Long Tom” Roberts, an electrical engineer; and William Harper “Johnny” Littlejohn, an archaeologist and geologist). The plot is reported to be an original Doc Savage story that attempts to encapsulate the feeling of the whole collection of Lester Dent’s work.

The Doc still has a strong following and most are excited by this news.

————————————

Daniel Craig has let slip that James Bond 23 will start filming at the end of 2010. The star was asked about the next JB film as he left A Steady Rain, a Broadway play in which he is currently performing alongside Wolverine star Hugh Jackman.

This will be Craigs third 007 installment with his previous two films, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, earning $594 million and $586 million, respectively, at the box office.

Peter Morgan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are writing the script for the 23rd film, which does not have a director attached as of yet.

.

Siguiendo en la moda de rescatar films que tuvieron sus gloriosos años, y subiéndose al carro de las ya estrenadas Indiana Jones, Terminator Salvation, Rambo, Tron 2 (y súmele un gran largo etcétera), nos llega ahora la noticia de que el gran hombre superviviente de un mundo post-apocalíptico vuelve a sus andanzas.

El director  George Miller,  el mismo de las famosas obras que en su momento nos impactaron por una visión de un mundo futurista en un estado total de anarquía y devastado, sobreviviendo a duras penas y siguiendo la frase más “darwiniana” conocida como “la supervivencia del más apto” -Mad Max (1979), Mad Max 2 (1981) y Vellón the Thunderdome (1985)-, sorprende con una nuevas declaraciones donde afirma que habrá MAD MAX 4.  La sorpresa no viene dada solo por este interesante anuncio, sino que complementa sus declaraciones dejando en duda la participación de Mel Gibson en este nuevo proyecto. Se está barajando como posible protagonista al  nuevo Cristian Bale del cine (lo vemos hasta en la sopa). Si, me refiero al australiano Sam Worthington.

Hasta los momentos queda mucho tiempo para poder tener el honor de ver un nuevo capítulo de esta gran saga, que al parecer llevará como título “Fury Road”. El rodaje comenzará en agosto del 2010 (como no podía ser de otra forma, en Australia) en Nueva Gales del Sur.

Estaremos atentos a cualquier novedad al respecto.

Fuente: EFE.

Minos

หลังลือเล่ากันมาพักใหญ่สำหรับโปรเจคภาคต่อในตำนานอย่าง MAD MAX ผลงาน Action ขึ้นหิ้งของผู้กำกับ George Millerซึ่งงานนี้เจ้าตัวหวังนำหนังสุดเก๋าของตนเองมาสานต่อเป็นภาคที่ 4 แต่ก็ถูกดองมานานจนเหล่าหนักแสดงหลังต่างแก่กันไปหมดแล้ว ถึงอย่างไรก็ดีตอนนี้โปรเจคมีการยืนยันออกมาเรียบร้อยแล้วครับว่า “สร้างแน่!!!”

ในตอนนี้หนังยังอยุ่ในช่วงเตรียมงานสร้างและคัดเลือกตัวนักแสดง ซึ่งรายชื่อนักแสดงที่โผล่มาตอนนี้ก็แรงๆเลยครบเริ่มด้วยว่าที่พระเอกดาวรุ่ง Sam Worthington ที่ลือกันลั่นว่าจะมาเป็นพระเอกคนใหม่แทนที่ลุง Mel Gibson ทางด้านนางเอกก็ฮ็อตไม่แพ้ครับเพราะหนังอาจได้ดาราสาว Charlize Theron มานั่งเก้าอี้ซิ่งอีกคนก็เป็นได้ สำหรับชื่อตอนในภาคนี้ George Miller ก็ประกาศออกมาแล้วครับคือ “MAD MAX 4 Fury Road” โดยจะถ่ายทำกัน แถว Broken Hill รัฐ New South Wales ประเทศ Australia ซึ่งเป็นทำเลเดียวกับที่ใช้ถ่ายทำในภาค 2 (The Road Warrior) ด้วยทุนสร้างกว่า 100 ล้านเหรียญ เลยที่เดียว!!!

ล่าสุดนี้ George Miller ก็ได้เผยโฉมรถคันใหม่ที่จะนำมาใช้ในภาค 4 นี้ออกมาให้ชมกันผ่านทาง ABCnews (Australia) โดยรถยัคงเปี่ยมโดยเอกลักษณ์จากหนง 3 ภาคก่อนแบบไม่ทิ้งเยื่อใยให้เสียปล่าว

MAD MAX คือภาพยนตร์ว่าด้วยโลกอนาคตที่ไร้ซึ่งอารยธรรมซึ่งถูกทำลายโดยสิ้นเชิง ทั้งโลกกลายเป็นบ้านป่าเมืองที่ คนต่างไล่ฆ่ากันเอง โดยหนังมีพระเอกเป็น(อดีต)ตำรวจพันธุ์มหากาฬ ที่ออกตามล่าพวกเดนตายที่ฆ่าคนภรรยาและลูกๆของเค้า หนังประสบความสำเร็จอย่างมากจนมีภาคต่อออกมาอีก 2 ตอน ครบกำหนดไตรภาคพอดิบพอดี บทของ MAD MAX สร้างชื่อให้ Mel Gibson ดังเป็นพลุแตกจนกลายเป็นตำนานในปัจจุบัน

La saga resucita sin Gibson

Charlize Theron en ‘Mad Max 4′

LOS ANGELES, 23 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) -

La bella actriz surafricana es uno de los nombres que suenan para encabezar el reparto de la nueva entrega de ‘Mad Max’, una saga que resucitará sin su protagonista de antaño, Mel Gibson.

Junto a Charlize Theron, y según apunta una información publicada por E! Online, el nuevo protagonista de la saga apocalíptica sería Tom Hardy (‘Black Hawk derribado’, ‘Fuera de control’) que tomaría así el testigo de Gibson. En todo caso, la publicación deja bien claro que el rodaje no es ni muchos inminente ya que el estudio todavía no ha firmado a nadie, de hecho ni tan siquiera han hecho ofertas formales a los actores elegidos.

El que sí estará en la nueva película de ‘Mad Max’ será George Miller, el hombre que dirigió las tres entregas de la saga que nació hace ahora treinta años. La última cinta de esta franquicia, ‘Mad Max III, más allá de la cúpula del trueno’, se estrenó en 1985 y en ella Gibson compartía protagonismo con la incombustible Tina Turner.

George Miller con cuatro duros en el bolsillo se inventó en 1979 una de las auténticas obras de culto del séptimo arte. Desde los primeros planos, ya intuimos que algo va mal por el planeta Tierra, alguna pata del sistema se ha debido venir abajo.

No sabemos cuál, pero desde luego la justicia se nos presenta como una ruina, escenificada en un edificio cochambroso en cuyo interior deambulan cuatro vigilantes de la carretera, quiénes al juzgar por lo que vemos, no ostentan un cargo excesivamente bien visto en la sociedad.

La acción se desata con ‘El Jinete Nocturno’, un loco de la carretera al que Max y su compañero ‘El Ganso’ pondrán fin en el propio asfalto. A partir de ahí, unos motoristas nómadas amigos del Jinete llegarán a la ciudad para clamar venganza.

Comenzará el western futurista. Tenemos a la ley, al sheriff y su ayudante, representada en Max y en sus compañeros. Y al otro lado a los forajidos y bandidos, los nómadas de la carretera. El enfrentamiento entre unos y otros resultará trepidante, sin conceder tregua ninguna.

Un final memorable, un acoso asfixiante de los bandidos, quiénes sembrarán el terror a su paso. Hasta que nazca el solitario de la carretera, Mad Max. Se enfunda su traje de cuero. Calza sus botas. Enciende el motor de su ocho cilindros de su ’Interceptor’ y lo hace rugir. Sale al asfalto e impone su nueva ley. El mundo está jodido, y en ese mundo sólo sobreviven los más duros. Obra maestra.