Tag Archives: Tom Hardy

“Mad Max: Fury Road” — Best Films of 2015

by Gabriel Valdez

What is there left to say about “Mad Max: Fury Road?” It’s arguably the greatest action film ever made. It’s thematically thick and boasts a nuanced story that unfolds its characters through action rather than dialogue. It doesn’t treat the viewer as stupid or needing explanation. It simply leaps into its world and expects you to keep up at its breakneck pace.

Because everyone else is going to talk about it in particular ways, and I’ve already discussed its feminism and how it uses choreography to create visual myth, I’m going to do something more esoteric. I’m going to tell you why the film closest to “Mad Max: Fury Road” is one of the last you’d ever compare it to: John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

They’re both broadly sci-fi, but for all intents and purposes, they belong to completely different genres – “The Thing” is alien body horror. “Mad Max: Fury Road” is post-apocalyptic demolition derby. One takes place almost entirely in one location. The other never stops moving.

I compare the two because of the specificity in each film. Both enjoyed an overly long scripting process. “The Thing” was pushed back considerably. Because of this, director John Carpenter decided to take the time to plot out extra elements in the film. It meant small details that would’ve normally been overlooked instead got their own unspoken story lines. There’s a throwaway argument early in the film about who had keys to emergency blood transfusions. It might’ve served only as an opportunity for characters to turn on each other and cast suspicions. Carpenter noticed layers he could add to this. He added notes for each scene, including moments that hint the keys’ potential paths via subtle details in other scenes. It’s always backgrounded, and it’s unlikely you’ll notice on first viewing, but it gives you the sense there’s more going on in the world than just what’s happening in front of the camera.

For a film where the very question of who’s human and who’s a flesh-ripping alien creates the tension of the story, these extra details – even if we don’t consciously notice or connect them at first – serve to ground us in the film’s reality. There are stories happening that we only see pieces of, suggestions of. These elevate the horror of a film by letting our mind run wild with the possibilities. Instead of a routinely effective story, we’re offered a more complete glimpse into a nuanced horror world. That wouldn’t have been there without the delay that allowed Carpenter to keep on making notes, to add the details that make us feel his world’s rhythms.

George Miller effectively worked on and revamped the story and sequences of “Mad Max: Fury Road” for a decade. The stunts and shots were already mapped out in extreme detail by the time the stunt crew even started working on them. But this is detail and what I’m looking for is nuance. The film is filled with suggestions about when it might take place in the original “Mad Max” trilogy’s timeline. All the details disagree, adding even more fuel to the concept that we’re being told a myth that transcends time rather than a story that fits within it.

Character is realized through action, but the action is so detailed that it feels expressive in the way dance often is. I’ve long said the best fight scene should act like the best dialogue scene. Something should change for everyone within it and we should understand what that is. This is precisely what happens in a movie where action scenes almost never stop. Most action scenes have a few moving parts – that makes them simple and we’re left to rely on emotional investment to suspend our disbelief. “Mad Max: Fury Road” has that emotional investment, but it doesn’t waste it filling in cracks in its artistry. Instead, each sequence is detailed in ways that make us understand how dozens of moving parts interact together. That’s brave, and it’s the kind of madness earned through years of pre-planning.

To get even more tangential, developers have sometimes said that the holy grail of video game development would be a world that takes place at the level of detail our own does: a block of a real city, where real people make unpredictable decisions that are unique to their own complex motivations, and even those motivations evolve. Worlds can be built in grand scopes, but the way they translate to audiences is via details so minor you don’t always register them in a conscious way. This is the true measure of world-building. This is what films like “The Thing” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” do. They marry genres built for grand scale to the finest detail imaginable on a cinematic level. That’s how you transcend genre, by delivering a world so nuanced, it feels like it could live without the artist’s hand.

Mad Max Fury Road poster

Images are from Nerdist and Coming Soon.

Most Anticipated Movies of 2015: Cameron Crowe, Patrick Stewart, & The Tom Hardy Dream — #40-31

Tom Hardy Legend

by Gabriel Valdez

I have a problem: Nearly all the “Most Anticipated” lists I come across seem to be countdowns of which 2015 movies have the largest budgets. The top few are always the same: Avengers, Star Wars, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible. I’m looking forward to all these sequels, sure, but how many critics do you think will really put those films in their year-end Top 10s? How many will turn around mid-year and write the ridiculous argument that Hollywood is dying because of sequels and remakes?

My biggest problem with these lists is that none of them include movies made by women, foreign films, or horror. Few of them include very diverse films. No sci-fi is included unless $200 million was spent putting giant robots in it. I’m not saying there should be a quota. I’m just saying that, in the current system, if you don’t do your research, everyone’s going to be listing the same films you’ve already seen 80 trailers for.

I’d rather see personal lists than budget countdowns. I’ve got two sequels or remakes in my Top 20 Most Anticipated Films, and I’m not even someone who has anything against sequels and remakes. I happen to think they’re not killing Hollywood and that, if you look at the history of film, those two things have been around almost as long as movies have. The years 1908-1910 saw a franchise of no less than six Sherlock Holmes movies made. The Fall of a Nation was the first big-budget studio sequel, in 1916. The Wizard of Oz was made on film more than two dozen times before we got to the “original” Judy Garland version that we often claim any remake of is tantamount to sacrilege. Let’s not even mention Romeo and Juliet or A Christmas Carol.

I know I’m arguing for both sides here, but when every Most Anticipated list names the same exact movies, and it feels like there’s a budget requirement for being on the list in the first place, it just doesn’t feel like those lists are digging very deep or telling you anything you don’t already know. In which case: what’s the point of the damn list?

I’ll tell you three big films that are missing from my list, and why: Jurassic World? I’ve seen the original Jurassic Park more than 80 times. (I like to think I’m Orson Welles when he watched Stagecoach dozens of times in a row.) But the Jurassic World trailer, while showing off some pretty sights, also looks like it’s advertising a really bad movie.

Spectre? Of all the Daniel Craig James Bonds, Skyfall is the only one I feel no need to revisit. Director Sam Mendes is as talented as it gets, but he was given a franchise in which he let his most egregious sensibilities and blatant misogyny shine through. Yeah, I get it: Sam Mendes really hates women. If I wanted to see that in my Bond again, I’d pop in some late-era Roger Moore. I look at Spectre and it feels like a chore of rehashing extinct clichés and attitudes without any awareness as to how the world’s changed. We already have 20 James Bond movies like that. It stops being interesting. I thought we’d moved on.

Mission: Impossible V? I’m really excited for it, but every M:I film brings a new director and a whole new style. I admire that approach to making sequels, but it also means I have a wait-and-see attitude to each new entry.

So what is on the list? Let’s talk about the first ten entries:


“Hah, what a hypocrite!” you’re thinking. But as up and down as this franchise is, let me tell you something about why it does so well: Vin Diesel. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Michelle Rodriguez. Jordana Brewster. Tyrese Gibson. Sung Kang. Ludacris. Now Nathalie Emmanuel. Here are African-American, Polynesian, Hispanic, and Korean action heroes – many of them women – who aren’t just sidekicks, but are leads. Maybe the Fast & Furious franchise wouldn’t be as much fun to watch if we had other films where these kinds of characters could avenge and assemble, but without those other films, this is the franchise that gives us the big-budget heroes a good number of us don’t get anywhere else.

Add in that this entry is directed by Malaysian-born horror director James Wan, who’s given us both Insidious and The Conjuring, and my interest is well piqued. And that’s before we even talk about this being the last film for the late Paul Walker, an actor many admired just as much for his humanity as for what he did on-screen.


One film you’ve heard of, one you haven’t is a good way to start. Winter Sleep is a Turkish movie directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, whose previous work is nothing short of stunning. It concerns an aging actor at odds with his younger wife and his recently divorced sister, and what those relationships become when trapped together for the winter in the hotel they run. The beautiful-looking film won a Palme d’Or at Cannes and the Directing award at the Asia Pacific Screen Awards. No North American release date is set.

The Man From Uncle


Many of us wrote Guy Ritchie off as a flash in the pan after his passion project Swept Away with his then-wife Madonna. That was 2002. In 2008, he reannounced himself into the genre of British low gangster comedy he helped to create, adding RocknRolla to a resume that included Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.

Then came his two Sherlock Holmes movies starring Robert Downey Jr. Hilarious, a bit creepy, and surprisingly artful, these were Ritchie finally finding his groove. Now comes The Man from UNCLE, and the opportunity to see what Ritchie does to the Cold War in the 1960s feels too good to pass up. Starring Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer as a CIA and KGB agent forced to work together, one might expect the same sort of semi-married couple banter he gave to Holmes and Watson. August 14.


Any fan of Star Trek has to admit that, even in his 40s, Patrick Stewart was always a bit stiff. He found great nuance and emotion in that stodginess, but dear god, he was proper. The opportunity to see him stretch his wings outside of the role of a strict yet endearing father figure seems rather rare. In this adaptation of the Broadway play, Stewart plays a Juilliard dance professor who is approached by a young couple (Carla Gugino and Matthew Lillard, both vastly underrated). They want to interview him, but it becomes clear that they have other motives in mind, and a complicated three-way tug-of-war over obsessions both past and present begins to develop. January 14/Already out, but good luck finding it.


If you were dying at an old age, and had the opportunity to take over the body of someone younger, relive life with all the advantages of youth once more, would you do it? Comedies take away the responsibility by having you transport into your own, younger self, and relive life with the lessons you know now. But what if that younger person was someone else alive today?

Starring Ben Kingsley, Ryan Reynolds, Michelle Dockery, and Matthew Goode, this wouldn’t make the list on its own. But you put a director like Tarsem Singh on board, and his unparalleled (yet very hit-or-miss) visual sense suddenly threatens to take this into unexpected territory. Toss in a mystery about where the younger body comes from and a secret society and suddenly it all makes perfect Tarsem sense. July 31.

Since there are no trailers or promotional images yet, above is the trailer for Tarsem’s masterpiece and the Official Best Movie You’ve Never Seen: The Fall. If you love cinema, it’s a movie you cannot pass up.

St James Place Spielberg Hanks


Well, if Tarsem is the director from whom you never know what to expect, Steven Spielberg is the director in whom you can always rely. Teaming up with Tom Hanks in a surprisingly under-the-radar cold war spy thriller, there’s only one thing that gives me pause. And that is, surprisingly, the Coen Brothers, who co-wrote the screenplay with Matt Charman. Simply put, their last effort on Unbroken was abominable, and no director was forced to do more to save a film from its screenplay last year than Angelina Jolie.

A shoddy effort like that for Spielberg, and no one’s going to be blaming the director anymore. The Coens have a phenomenal track record, but they were the one thing holding Unbroken back, and they were doing it in historic style. So let’s hope they shape up here, because the idea of a classically Coen-written, Spielberg-directed, Hanks-starring thriller is awfully tempting.

It may or may not be named St. James Place when it finally comes out on October 16.

Untitled Cameron Crowe Bradley Cooper Emma Stone


Just savor that description above: “Untitled Cameron Crowe Defense Industry Romance.” What? In my heart of hearts, I imagine a reality in which that’s the actual title they release the film under. It stars Bradley Cooper as a military contractor who falls for his Air Force overseer. It co-stars three of the best film comedians working today: Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, and some guy named Bill Murray, as well as Alec Baldwin and John Krasinski.

From the writer-director of Almost Famous and We Bought a Zoo, it’s too soon to tell if it’ll take on the defense industry the same way Crowe once took on the professional sports industry in Jerry Maguire. But Crowe, and that cast? And a movie which leaked Sony e-mails (the gift that keeps on giving) reveals made studio heads extremely nervous? Sign me way the hell up. May 29.


From David Robert Mitchell comes a low budget horror movie that’s been earning comparisons to John Carpenter’s best work on the festival circuit. Even the trailer is creepy by way of being smart. The conceit at the center plays like The Ring: Something horrific follows you and makes your life hell until you pass it along to someone else. Yet it plays the passing of that conceit into metaphorical date rape territory, and in so doing begins to speak about a horror that’s just as cultural and personal, not just supernatural. That’s the kind of thing that gets under your skin, that turns a horror movie from cliché fun to, in the words of David Fincher, “movies that scar.”

I’m always interested in the movies that seek to scar and have a reason for doing so, because they can confront audiences in a way other movies aren’t allowed. Horror often allows the best opportunity to do that. March 27.

Legend Hardy and Hardy


If 2015 in movies is about one thing, it’s cold war spy thrillers. If it’s about two things, it’s cold war spy thrillers and gangster movies. So how about a cold war gangster movie? You see, identical twins are terrorizing 1950s London. They’re played by Tom Hardy and Tom Hardy. Yes, there are two Tom Hardys.

Moving on, it also stars- yes, I said two Tom Hardys. But the film’s also about- I’m sorry, did you ask if they both take their shirts off? I…well, I don’t know. But Emily Browning is a powerhouse Australian actress who’s been making- yes, I’m sure he speaks in that sexy, Tom Hardy accent. But I look forward to seeing director Brian Helgeland’s realization of London. After A Knight’s Tale and 42, he’s shown – do the two Tom Hardys kiss? They’re twins! Get your mind out of the gutter! Legend offers – no, I don’t know if there’s a poster with both of them on it. Do they have a flexing competition?!? They’re gangsters, they- do they have hearts of gold that make them worth saving? I’m telling you what I know, it’s – oh, forget it. All your Tom Hardy dreams come true on October 2.


Moving on to Colin Firth, thank god, Kingsman: The Secret Service looks – are there two Colin Firths in this? No! There’s just one Colin Firth and he’s, like, 100 years old and acting stodgy now. The single Colin Firth that stars in this movie works for an Avengers (think British Avengers)-like outfit that goes on secret missions that require them to save the world by riffing on the most ridiculous James Bond tropes. It’s directed by Matthew Vaughn, who saved the X-Men franchise, and – perhaps more importantly – it’s written with Jane Goldman, Vaughn’s partner-in-crime whose name no one knows despite adapting Stardust, Kick-Ass, and X-Men: First Class all into really good screenplays for Vaughn to direct.

My one worry for Kingsman is that it seems like all the heroes are able Caucasian stereotypes, while the villains are played by Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and an amputee with blade legs. Could maybe change that up just a hair, but I don’t want to presume too much before I’ve actually seen the thing. February 13.

Stay tuned for our top 30.

Trailer of the Week — “Mad Max: Fury Road”

Mel Gibson you look so different

With apologies to the 50 Shades of Grey trailer that premiered this week (which for some reason also functions as the ad for a Beyonce remix), I’ve had the unfortunate privilege of reading the book on which it’s based. My girlfriend at the time insisted – she was studying advertising and was curious how it had become so popular – but all we could think as we read each overheated new chapter was, “They’re doing it wrong.”

There’s also the first trailer for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. It’s an announcement trailer, visually stunning but spinning from scene to scene too quickly to communicate the series’ real strength – the emotional battles of its characters. It also highlights those trademark Peter Jackson action scenes that always turn out spectacular in the movie but never look quite right in a trailer. I’m sure the story trailer we’ll get in a month or two will connect better.

Leaving behind what may be the two whitest movies of all time, I’m going to go with the only movie with better bondage than 50 Shades of White and more epic visuals than Lord of the Rings 6: Hobbit 3: 5 Armies (which is beginning to sound like a cricket score): that would be Mad Max: Fury Road.

The colors, the costumes, knowing that most of those insane stunts are all live action…this film took 30 years to get off the ground, and every minute of that time looks like it made it onto the screen. I have not seen a film announced better all year.

It’s funny, but whenever we make period pieces, we dress our actors in drab colors – grays, blacks, browns – when the truth is we exist in one of the least colorful eras for fashion in human history. It’s the way we treat the post-apocalypse, too, and while it makes sense for a lone hunter to be decked in the camouflage of decay, regular townsfolk would be more likely to wear greens, reds, whites, yellows, purples – color would be one of the easiest and cheapest ways to pick your day up. Or, if you’re a road bandit: spikes, studs, and black-and-white make-up cause those are the colors of the skulls you crush. Point is, in the wasteland, a little artistic expression in your dress goes a long way toward making everyone’s day better.

In a cinematic age of explosions and CGI and drab wastelands, you’d better look different and feel different, and Mad Max: Fury Road finds a way to make the barren post-apocalypse a thing of rare beauty. If you’ve ever spent a night in the wilderness, not just camping but out away from every hint of light – even a porch lamp – you know that nature offers a color palette you couldn’t dream of. Post-apocalypse movies should be vibrant. George Miller seems to be emulating this – sure, it happens in a desert, but the browns are deeper, yellower, redder, the blues are thicker, the spikes spikier. It’s easy to forget his first three Mad Max movies – especially the otherwise problematic Beyond Thunderdome – were spectacular feats of color and cinematography. So this just leaped to the very top of my Movies of 2015 list.

Plus Tom Hardy looks to have picked up predecessor Mel Gibson’s weary tics, while bald Charlize Theron with a mechanical hand and day-old Braveheart make-up is a hero I can easily root for.

I just hope the DVD comes with an incomprehensible Australian dub like the original did.