Review: Truth - Keeping it Honest

Truth

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, David Lyons, Dennis Quaid, Elizabeth Moss

Written and Directed By:  James Vanderbilt

121 minutes     Rated M

It’s a curious thing truth isn’t it? Often it’s confused with facts, regularly it’s determined to be infallible and rarely is one person’s truth the same as another’s.  Perception versus reality, memory coloring actuality, even moral judgement introduced into a damned good story, all can be present in the quest for truth, the search for what happened, what ‘is’ or ‘was’.  Add to all that a media needing to report news, communicating information, questioning assumptions and, yes, grabbing a headline, and you have a fine of pot of shipping to deal with.

Mary Mepes (Blanchett) and Dan Rather (Redford) were two bastions at CBS News particularly its flagship investigative programme ’60 Minutes’ (a long running 48 minute weekly magazine show). Mary had broken the horror story about Abu Ghraib and was much respected in the news community. Rather had been in the business since dinosaurs walked to earth. They both had runs on the board.

A story comes their way which suggests George W Bush may have stretched the truth about his military record and the National Guard. Compelling documentary evidence and information from ‘reliable’ sources convince them it’s a story worth telling and putting to air in 2004. Bush is in a close race with John Kerry for the presidency (his second term), has his stewardship of the country during the trauma of September 11^th to bolster his patriotism and resolve as points deserving of another term. If he was found to have lied about his past (especially in anything military or public service) it could significantly impact on his chances.

But what is the truth, how solid is the evidence, is politics the driver behind the story (let alone the allegations) and what are the what ifs?

This is a fascinating story well told in a tight and lively script by Vanderbilt  (based on Mary Mepes’ book ‘Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power ‘)and deftly directed by him  . Blanchett is practically flawless as Mepes, she seems to be caught in a scene for the first time rather than filmed ‘performing’ a well-rehearsed scene which has gone through many takes. Redford is convincing and strong as Rather (although I suspect the veteran newsman is rather more brittle than Redford portrays). David Lyons and Elizabeth Moss bring real assurance and insight into their roles as Josh and Lucy. Dennis Quaid as Col Roger Charles is good too although his part seems underwritten. Other memorable performances come from Bruce Greenwood and Stacey Keach but really there is barely a weak link in any performance. There are some beautiful cameos from Aussies Noni Hazelhurst (has a lovely monologue which she delivers expertly and movingly), Phillip Quast, Rachel Blake (amazing) and Andrew MacFarlane.

Filmed almost entirely in Sydney at Cate’s request (how’s that for star power?) this is a wonderful piece of movie making and storytelling. It may have a didactic moment here and there but there is so much to ponder on and themes to consider – journalism, politics, truth, accountability, respect, support, fallibility, evidence, who’s dispensable etc etc  - it is worth every viewing minute (but far from a ‘worthy’ exercise).

It is a shame the film tanked in the States and so will be overlooked in the awards season. Blanchett deserves some sort of nod for her performance as does the film itself. CBS even banned any advertising for the film and some media outlets indulged in some pretty tasteless (and arguably dodgy) negative stories about the movie and maybe even published some slanted negative reviews. To deliberately publish a negative review which has no basis in reality for the sole reason of destroying or besmirching a movie is questionable at best and unethical at worst. Somewhat ironic given the subject matter of the film they are trying to bury don’t you think?

This is a film deserving of your attention, you will remember it for a long time and you will be thankful you saw it. Plus you’ll take a moment to be thankful for Rather and Mepes, their courage and their integrity.

4 ½ out of 5

Review: Spectre - Not So Shaken and Hardly Stirred

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott

2h 30 mins Rated M

I didn’t like the James Bond films over the years. I think I enjoyed Goldfinger and then it was all pretty much ho hum after that until Daniel Craig ‘emerged’ from the ocean in ‘Casino Royale’. There was a significant slip again with the ghastly ‘Quantum of Solace’ which was more than made up for in ‘Skyfall’. And now we find ourselves on holiday with Jim down Mexico way on the day of the dead for the exciting opening sequence of Bond 24 known as ‘Spectre’.

The title of the film is the name of a global terrorist organisation known (apparently) to Bond fans as the warehouse central for most of the Bond villains. For an organisation so well known to Bond and MIwhatever they seem pretty amazing survivors and even better at hiding out and staging surprises that leave Bond, M et al flat footed.

So we have the usual compliment of baddies being beaten up, stunning set pieces in equally stunning settings and a complement of snazzy gadgets per favor the delightful Q (played delightfully by Ben Whishaw). There’s of course the female reduced to object of desire (played in this one by Monica Belucci and Lea Seydoux) but apart from a bit of dry humping on a mirror the sex is non-existent.

To lift the somewhat dull (and I have to say shockingly clichéd at times) narrative, the new head of a committee that has taken over the running of the MI6, now merged with MI5, Max or ‘C’ (Andrew Scott) keeps telling M (Ralph Fiennes) that the 00 programme is now obsolete - indeed “the digital ghost of the world”, (or another type of Spectre surely).

I enjoyed the hopping around on roofs and in basements, the highly unbelievable spinning in helicopters, a bit of a car chase, a plane pursuit, a boat spurt and even a nice train excursion. They’re well staged and Bondesque, if unlikely and ridiculous but fun.

We don’t get much of the more deep and reflective, emotionally challenged Blond from Daniel and director Sam Mendes this time. It felt a bit like filling in a bit of time until a better idea comes along or maybe even ‘if we never make another Bond this would be a good one to finish on’, I think the ship sailed on that with ‘Skyfall’. Daniel still does well with the role, pouting and staring away but perhaps not quite fitting into the suits as finely as in the past. Maybe a metaphor for the role and actor?

Christoph Waltz plays the villain Bloomfeld with all the depth of the stereotype as written. He vamps a bit too much for my liking and we all know his attempts to finish James of will fail so that cliché falls pretty quickly. I wonder if we’ll ever get a whitebread, anglo villain in a Bond film? Maybe rope Donald Trump in as a megalomaniac businessman wanting to get world dominance? Shouldn’t be too much of a stretch…

So for its collection of faults and clichés this is still an enjoyable couple of hours of cinema, well shot, well-staged, underwritten and perhaps not all that well thought out. I did enjoy it but I might not be as ready to rush off to the next one.

3 out of 5

Review: The Dressmaker - Finely tailored

Director: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Screenplay: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Starring: Kate Winslet, Liam Hemsworth, Hugo Weaving, Judy Davis, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Darcey Wilson, Barry Otto

118 minutes    Rated: M 

The return of the Prodigal is one of those enduring themes in fiction, books particularly but also in film. Some might consider it a trope (a now very commonly used insult which I have to admit I only became aware of in the last year or so), but I find it compelling when done well. In the vaguely gothic farce ‘The Dressmaker’ the device works more than well.

It’s 1951 - come the night come the prodigal as Tilly Dunnage (the divine Kate Winslet)returns to her childhood hometown Dungatar in country Victoria. Soon we learn her Singer sewing machine is not the only ‘baggage’ she brings with her. She believes she carries a curse from an inconclusive and ambiguous incident as a schoolchild related to her implication in the death of a fellow schoolmate. Far from being welcomed home the townsfolk rather see her as a ‘murderess’ back to stir up divisions and skeletons from the past.  Her bridge to gaining some respectability is her dressmaking/haute couture abilities (she has been working in Paris for years learning the trade)and don’t the locals flock to be frocked up. But there's more things going on in this story than, well in a country town on a summer's Tuesday.

Sentiment doesn’t get much of a go in this ever so slightly exaggerated and cartoonish feature beautifully crafted by Jocelyn Moorhouse (and second unit by none other than PJ Hogan) but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have heart or charm and even skirts some dark and tough matters. I don’t think the town’s name is some mere whimsy; this is a smelly hell hole where the kooky and snippy characters are trapped by or in their own limited world view. Also surely the allegorical names of characters (Harridiene and Pettyman for two) are deliberately invented.

The cast is almost all without equal as you would expect when you have an Academy Award winner (Winslet) and a company of Australia’s most familiar actors. The only bum note for me was Rebecca Gibney, who I usually admire, who was just not right. Judy Davis was perfect as the stroppy Mad Molly, pure cartoon but Davis still managed to give her nuance and totally engages the audience, man she’s good. Barry Otto, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Shane Bourne, Julia Blake and Sacha Horler were absolutely bloody sensational. Hugo Weaving was pretty good too but maybe a little too ‘wink, wink ,nudge, nudge’ for my liking. In the beautifully done flashback scenes I particularly enjoyed Darcey Wilson as the young Tilly, wonderful. Liam of the Hemsworth cult made the most of his role (and body) and was a perfect (if somewhat age match disconnect) romantic foil for Tilly. And it was great to see Kate Winslet and Kerry Fox back on screen again after a long break.

This was an entertaining, polished and engaging movie filmed in lovely locations in country Victoria. The flashback scenes (and the opening credits) had a stunning palate and look to them which contrasted beautifully with the golden, dry and colourful scenes of 1951.

From the popular novel by Melbourne’s own Rosalie Ham (who wrote the original ‘treatment’ a few years back), this is a gorgeous entertainment that I encourage everyone to see. Lush, tasteful, a little out of kilter and a lot accomplished because of precise writing, masterly direction and the best that good actors can deliver.

4 out of 5  

Review: The Martian - Take Off For Movie Magic

The Martian

Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejofor, Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Drew Goddard

141 Minutes    Rated: M

We dream of the day human lands on the surface of Mars and has an Armstrongian wander around. For yonks we’ve had books and stories in one form or another about ‘life’ on Mars; those who believe in UFOs generally imagine it’s the Martians inside and who come among us. I wonder where the fascination for that planet and the possibilities we assign to came from, maybe it’s to do with the idea of heaven and the heavens, perhaps a refuge for atheists who poo poo the heaven concept but can’t quite throw off some tribal need for humans to connect or seek the ‘other worlds’?

Ridley Scott has brought us another chapter in the mission to Mars story and it’s one of the best. A NASA team led by commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain)needs to flee Mars before they’re wiped out by a destructive storm. She rallies the crew and they escape through (an extremely convincing and visually magic moment)the building storm of wind, sand and debris onto the launch module and head off. Bit of an oops though, one of the astronauts, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) gets himself rather brutally injured and all signs indicate, well, there are no signs of life. Bye Mark we’ve got places to be…

Of course he’s not dead, just a bit battered and bewildered but patches himself up and sets about life on his own in the base working out how to survive on minimal supplies and little hope of rescue. He talks through his progress via a video diary and some very well paced and constructed snapshot scenes with the requisite amount of drama, nice comedy and a bit of pathos. Beautifully done.

Lest you worry this is a film only about a Martian castaway and the same desperation presented in twenty different ways to fill out the 141 minutes, there is a steady, convincing and assured cutting between Watney and the guys back at NASA (and China – oh yes). Jeff Daniels as NASA director Teddy Sanders (although I did think it was just Will McAvoy finding a new career after The Newsroom)was a steady hand steering through the advice and conflicting thoughts of mission controller Chiwetel Ejiofor and PR whiz Kristen Wiig. The scenes of the administrators and controllers were often as compelling and tense as those up on Mars. This showed Scott’s skills, he is a master when he’s in form.

So I loved this movie, it looked good, it was well written, it was well acted and it was almost faultlessly directed. And importantly for a science fiction movie it was totally believable; I never thought for a moment that this could not have actually been happening right now. There’s an achievement.

I’m no science or aeronautic expert but I ponder on the following:

·         You have the technology to colonise or land and live on Mars BUT not to accurately determine if someone is dead or simply comatose/unconscious?
·         No one thought to include seeds/snap frozen seedlings in case other food was inedible or ran out for some reason?
·         Why couldn’t the ‘mother ship’ be turned around as soon as they found Watney was alive?
·         No back up comms system that would have received his video diary? Really?

Just askin’…

4 ½ out of 5

Review: 13 Minutes - A Great Time

13 Minutes

Starring: Christian Friedel, Katharina Schuttler

Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Written by: Fred Breinersdorfer, Léonie-Claire Breinersdorfer

114 Minutes      Rated MA 15+ 

I reckon Adolf Hitler was the luckiest despot ever to live. If we believe what we are told he narrowly escaped death in assassination attempts more times than anyone else. Were all the would be assassins unfortunate, unlikely or incompetent or did Adolf just have a whole lot of inexplicable luck? Surely his redoubtable badness ought to have wrought the worst Karma upon him. And yet…

The film 13 Minutes is about Georg Elser a resistance fighter from a small town in the Swabian Alps who builds a bomb which he plants in Munich’s Bürgerbräukeller. The plan is for the bomb to explode as Hitler is speaking on November 8 1939 and tear him apart. If this had happened history could have been changed and maybe Nazism and the war might have been stuffed. But…Hitler left the scene early, 13 minutes early and thus Elser failed.  He is found, arrested and imprisoned. Thus we find ourselves in a suspenseful and fascinating story of an intriguing man who saw what was developing in his homeland and wanted it to stop.

We see Elser in his hometown, in Munich, in prison and eventually in Dachau where his timing is not as fortunate as Hitler’s; in fact it is poignantly awful.

Christian Friedel is brilliant as Elser, calm and slight but also seething anger underneath it all. He sparkles and convinces and delivers a spot on riveting and touching performance. He is more than matched by Katharina Schuttler, Burghart Klaussner and Johann Von Bulow.

In the hands of director Oliver Hirschbiegel (also responsible for the masterpiece ‘Downfall’) this is a stunning and accomplished movie about a moment in history that is fascinating. Here’s the man who tried to kill Hitler and faced his torturers prepared to tell them to their faces that he wanted to prevent the bloodshed of what was to come, to save his fellow citizens and his homeland from them. How extraordinary is that?

I loved this film, found the story incredible and was riveted by the acting.

Make some space in your diary and see this movie.

4 ½ out of 5  

Review: Women He's Undressed Where A Lot Is Revealed

The Women He Undressed

Starring: Darren Gilshenan, Deborah Kennedy, Nathaniel Middleton

Directed by: Gillian Armstrong

Written by: Katherine Thomson 

100 minutes   Rated M

Hollywood can be thankful to our great wide land for stunt men, writers, directors, actors, soundtrack composers, directors of photography and more. They’ve had our best and recognised them through myriad awards, rightly so. Sometimes back home though they have not always been as well known.

You’d think a man from Kiama who had designed costumes in 282 movies for actors such as Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Fonda, Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood, won three Oscars and been the favorite of Jack Warner (and the go to guy for anyone at Warner Brothers) would be a hero in his homeland. Surely there’d be a building or two, a street, a scholarship or a fashion design college named after him. At least his name would be as prominent and recognisable as Nicole Kidman, Errol Flynn, Peter Finch or Heath Ledger surely? Um actually no.

Orry George Kelly was born in December 1897 in the coastal town of Kiama NSW looking up at the

stars on those clear skies every night. Only a couple of decades later he would be dressing stars of a different kind in the Hollywood studio lots of Warners, MGM and Universal.  He was a gay man who didn’t hide that fact at a time when the man he loved had to hide his predilection lest his career be doomed. That man was a struggling Brit looking for a housemate Archibald Leach. Archy and Orry lived together for many years as Leach’s career steadily grew and exploded under the name Cary Grant. Orry’s status grew also as he worked on films which became classics - Casablanca, Some Like it Hot, 42nd Street, The Maltese Falcon, Gypsy, Mame and Oklahoma.

This finely crafted and extremely entertaining (as well as educational) documentary is told through minimal archival footage, comment pieces from Jane Fonda, fellow costumiers Ann Roth (a protégé of Kelly’s) and Catherine Martin, Angela Lansbury and others and dramatic monologues reconstructing Orry’s story performed by  Darren Gilshenan  sitting mostly in a red rowboat (don’t ask)- Deborah Kennedy plays his mother Florence, who gets to offer her input while hanging up the washing on a grassy hill in front of a lighthouse (again don’t ask).

I did find this monologue enactment a bit naff, theatrical and jarring. I think a bit more reliance on archival footage or simple reconstruction dramatically without the cheesy stuff would have been better. I like my documentaries to be ‘real’ and tell the story as is. As always though that is the device the filmmakers chose and it is what it is. There is surprisingly little footage of Orry Kelly himself (although his Oscar acceptances are quite available on YouTube) and frankly I don’t know if it simply does not exist, was too expensive to use or too hard to find.

Let me assure you though there is still a lot in the film and it does work well and I loved it. There is even a bit of a mystery to end the film off with. His memoirs are discussed throughout the movie, the knowledge of his relationships, particularly with Mr Leach are pondered upon especially what the memoirs might have revealed. But most of all, what happened to the memoir manuscript itself? Well stay tuned viewer, the movie has news!

This is a film for all Australian filmgoers, especially lovers of the days of Hollywood as it was. It is a great resource for students of filmmaking and film history. It is ultimately a choice piece of documentary making by a skilled film-maker.

I learnt a lot from ‘Women He’s Undressed’ but most of all I was entertained and delighted by a worthy homage of an Australian we all ought to have known about, celebrated and taken pride in.

Good on you Orry Kelly.

4 out of 5

Orry-Kelly: Dressing Hollywood  an exhibition will be at ACMI, Federation Square Melbourne from August 18th - Jan 17th (admission free)

Review: Mr Holmes - What's It All About Sherlock?

Mr Holmes

Starring: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Frances De la Tout, Hiroyuki Sanada

Written by:  Jeffrey Hatcher (from the novel by Mitch Cullin)

Directed by: Bill Condon

Rated M   105 minutes

I wonder what it is that makes Sherlock Holmes so endearing as a character in film, theatre and TV (even radio in the past)? So many dramas with him as either the central character or part of an ensemble. Why the name ‘Sherlock’ is even part of the vernacular (‘No Sh*t Sherlock’ is one of my sarcastic favorites). I would venture that very few people today who love the character or know the name at least have never read any of the books. I have managed halfway through ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’ but bailed.

The latest incarnation of Holmes is in this Ian McKellen star turn.  We see a 93 yr old Sherlock at the end of his life, getting his last story down in his own words – we learn John Watson has been the author of all previous Sherlock stories.  His memory is a bit skewed so he needs to get the story done soonest. He revisits a case that came late in his career. He is helped with the encouragement and possible hero worship given by the son of his housekeeper in the delightful seaside cottage in Sussex he spends his days in, writing and tending his bees. I guess if I read the books I’d know if that enterprise was something I’d have known (or not).

The plot is actually quite convoluted but terribly intriguing and entertaining. I’m not sure why it’s a story about Holmes rather than Conan-Doyle. This might have given the story a different edge or perspective that could have overcome some of the ‘oh dear’ moments but nevertheless we have this film and not another. I know the Holmes’ estate made an attempt to stop or at least edit the film but I don’t know the full objections or where that all ended up.

I very much admire the Sir of McKellen but I think he was a bit over the top in this and perhaps given too much free rein to roll out some acting ‘tricks’. His highly pronounced speech patterns, the somewhat mannered gestures and the arch pauses or delivery of lines was a bit much frankly. That’s not to say it was unbearable or awful just a tad grating and I did have a few ‘oh come on luvvy’ thoughts. Of course the character of Holmes is a bit OTT but the trick is to make him seem eccentric or skilful but human rather than caricature I think.  We need to be engaged by him not want to move away.

Laura Linney as the housekeeper Mrs Munro is baffling frankly, very good but baffling. I’m not sure if something is missing in the final edit or it’s simply a ‘let’s not spend time on that part of the story’ but she waivers from surly and sulky to sad and angry. We know she’s grieving her husband but she just seems a bit too pissed off with something and on the verge of exploding either in rage or tears and I don’t know why. Is it something Holmes represents, something he’s done or just that she’s a dreary, sad old thing? Let’s not be mistaken, Laura Linney is one of this generation’s great actors but her characterisation in this was a mystery to me and it bothered me – a lot.

On the other hand as the young boy Roger, maybe protégé Milo Parker was sensational. I’m soooo tired of these perfect child actors that crop up continually, it’s a disgrace that they are so convincing and so spot on and so watchable at such a young age. Maybe we’re just wrong to think they would be anything but what they are, maybe that’s the gift of being young, not the surprise. Whichever, I thought he was a-mazing.

The cleverness of the script is testament to the skills of. It is beautifully directed (apart perhaps from the loose grip on the Linney character and the excesses of McKellan)and shot, the locations are wonderful and the period is brought to life and nicely realised.

This is a delightful film, odd to be sure but worth a visit.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: Madame Bovary - Suds and Studs a Real Dud

Madame Bovary

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Ezra Miller, Rhys ifans, Paul Giamatti, Lloyd Marshall Green

Written by: Felipe Marino (as Rose Barreneche)

Directed by: Sophie Barthes

118 minutes       Rated M

I’m fond of the story of Madame Bovary. Gustave Flaubert’s 1856 novel is a spicy and moral tale of one woman in a world where it’s a little bit more difficult to exist in than for most around her, she’s simply not content to conform or to be told how to live. She is a woman with needs and her attempts to satisfy them transcends the precepts of the time and the expectations of her ‘class’. She’s a woman who likes men and what men and women ‘do’ for each other. If she were a bloke it would have all been fine but she was a woman, a chattel and married to a very dull but decent man. It wasn’t enough, it didn’t nourish the part of her that made up a yearn, the primal in her. That yearning provides a good yarn (see what I did there?). It’s a good book, nicely structured, dense but readable and it gives the reader much food for thought. You will not turn the last page of this once scandalous novel and have nothing to ponder on.

All the more disappointing then when a film version is dull and lifeless, hollow and almost formulaic. A visually stunning work that belies the emptiness elsewhere. It’s as though Constable or Monet did their best works only for them to be hung in a laundry without lights. Perhaps the emotional detachment and childish lead is giving us Madame Bovary at the National Gallery rather than that great story, that huge sweeping novel that has such life and spice and great characters…oh where did it all go?

Australian Mia Wasikowski rather bafflingly uses an American accent as Emily Bovary and portrays her as petulant, pouty, sooky and I would not have been shocked if she’d come out with a ‘whatev-ah’. Maybe she was meant to be a woman of today somehow but that would be simply ridiculous.

Somewhat more compelling is Henry Lloyd Hughes as the dull (or unsatisfying) Doctor Charles Bovary. His bewilderment and emotional incapacity is convincing but necessarily dull. The tempters are played well enough with the boyish Ezra Miller as the smitten law clerk Leon and then the hunky Marquis is played strongly and (go for it girl) appealingly by Logan Marshall Green.  Knocking everyone out of the park is the terrific Rhys Ifans as the con man dry-goods dealer Monsieur Lheureux. Thank heavens for him.

So I’m not sure what the director Sophie Barthes was trying to bring us with this re-telling of the classic. It was pretty, the costumes were a-mazing and it was all very ordinary. It was not a great film and it was not terribly entertaining.

Wait for the DVD and watch it either on fast forward (stopping at the pretty scenery) or in stages. Unless you’ve had trouble sleeping when it could just help you nod off for a missed doze.

Dull and disappointing

2 out of 5

Review: All Noise and No Fizz in Mad Max

MAD MAX: Fury Road

Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult

Directed by: George Miller

Screenplay: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris

Rated MA  120mins.

Over 35 years ago Dr George Miller and a band of clever young things made a cult classic road movie along the Geelong Road near Lara called ‘Mad Max’ (aka ‘The Road Warrior’). It was crude and rough, very Australian and very out there. I watched it again recently and well time hasn’t been all that kind to it. It was pretty ordinary really albeit exciting. Ah the curse of time. I loved the third in the series ‘Beyond the Thunderdome’, camp and thrilling insured by the presence of Frank Thring and Tina Turner and the line “it’s dyin’ time”.

George Miller has been trying for a decade or three to get another instalment of the franchise produced. Maybe that length of time lends itself to a pile of Over the Top tosh passing for entertainment in 2015 because frankly that’s what this mush is. Mush Max more than Mad Max. Miller has more money than in 1979, he has more vehicles (mostly, oddly very old trucks) and a helluva lot more noise –dumbly so. Just to make sure the slow learner is looking the other way we even have vehicles with drummers, speakers and axers wielding guitar flame thrower implements. I was a bit amused by the number of war boys scrambling around the rigs and using the exhaust pipes to leverage from, must have been insensitive to burning flesh...And the costumiers have obviously taken a break from dressing heavy metal contestants in Eurovision to dress the cast and extras. Dear lord there must be a medication that helps one sit through this drivel. Or maybe that’s what was used to conceive it.

Okay let’s be clear I DO like some action films. I loooove Superman and Batman, I saw all the Harry Potters and Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies. I just don’t like noise and meaningless grunting mixed with ‘oh look how clever we are to make these big, a-mazing scenes…what you have no idea what they are?’ I like some plot and some a bit of understandable dialogue. There was no danger of actors forgetting their lines in this, they virtually had none.

I have a huge man crush on both Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. Tom did his broody, intense and surly best and Charlize struck a blow for the ‘cause’ and was good enough. Maybe get a new agent guys! Meanwhile Nicholas Hoult plays Nux, the misguided martyr tumour-ridden foot soldier suicide-bomber – I kid you not. He is actually terrific and his role has the most meat on it in many ways.

There is no doubt this is a beautifully shot movie, at times it is simply breathtaking but under all that

is…nothing. The land of the War Boys and the post-apocalyptic ground/citadel is spectacular but gee it borders on bad taste to me. It felt all too much like freak show rather than survivor land. Were there really little people and various disabled amongst all the creepiness? Oh dear me, really? I rarely am tempted to walk out of a film but I was so bored by this tedious rubbish I was ready to get out of there after an hour, desperate for something to lift it and introduce some zing.

Then along comes ‘The Wives’, suddenly some script, some meat on the skeleton and even some simple sense. The film has purpose and drama with bite for the remaining third. Maybe if someone dares to make another instalment in this madness we could have it about these interesting clansters.

Well there it is. A mess and a bore. A lot of noise and clunkers. A waste of a couple of looooong hours and admission price. You might end up with your own battle fatigue and burnt out and it just ain’t worth it.

2 out of 5