The Second Opinion

 And 

Vs.

 And 

And now, to finish my thank you gift, here’s part two of Mad Max vs. Judge Dredd. Max Max took round 1 for the cult movies, but now, it’s time for a role reversal. With the release of Beyond Thunderdome, the final entry in the Mad Max trilogy, the series was far into mainstream territory, grossing today’s equivalent of $80 million in the United States alone. Judge Dredd, meanwhile, went back to the drawing board for a little passion project attempt to bring us the adaptation the series deserved, but the result never quite made it out of cult territory. Will Mad Max take it all, or is the cult status where this genre belongs?

Dredd: If I have a style as a reviewer, it leans towards the analytical, though more of my own feelings, post-experience, than the elements a more seasoned critic might explore. I like to see if I can find the wavelength of a movie, to paint the picture of what it did for me, and I usually figure out something that I, at least, can be satisfied with. But a few minutes into the credits of Dredd, I realized I’d have to confess up front: You can’t exactly convey the full effect.

I could start with its merits as a brutal futuristic thriller, very akin to Robocop, which is probably its foremost trait. Dredd is exciting in both its pace and visuals, with a bleak humor and a clear sense of right and wrong to keep the massive carnage from seeming dreary or needless. But there’s something under the surface, always at work, whose presence gets stronger as the movie progresses.

Judge Dredd is a revered officer of the law in an apocalyptic time when the law itself is not revered. Surrounded by irradiated soil, the land from Boston to DC has been merged into a mega-city, packed with mega-structures collapsing under the weight of the citizens they hold. The only law enforcement are the Judges such as Dredd, who serve as judge, jury, and if need be, executioner, with no room for error. Firepower but not numbers are on their side, and they can only respond to 6% of the 17,000 crimes reported every day. Now they’ve found a much-needed potential resource in the psychic powers of the mutant Cassadra Anderson, a type harder to come by in this universe than in that of the X-Men. But whether it was placed in the right body is a coin toss, for while she wants nothing more than to become a Judge and aid the struggling citizens, her test results were on just the wrong end of “marginal.” Dredd is assigned to conduct her final test, putting her in charge of one of the readily-available investigations. The first act manages to squeeze a share of tension just from whether Cassandra – marginal indeed next to Dredd, for all her strength and world experience – will pass; the scene in which she is required to look a pleading man in the eyes and personally kill him is the movie’s most chilling, for the fact that you might find yourself hoping she does.

But the investigation they choose turns out rather extreme, even for the top 6%, for the homicide reported turns out to be the work of a drug lord, ruthless enough to claw her way to the top after a long scar inflicted under her eye ruined her first way of life. When they apprehend one of her men for questioning, she uses her influence to lock down the city, leaving the two Judges trapped with limited ammo and everything from armed goons to Vulcan bullets that slide straight through concrete coming at them. Dredd himself, unlike Stallone’s 1995 version, would barely list this as a notable day in his life, continuing to quiz Anderson on appropriate defenses as they are surrounded. But Anderson is forced to find her footing, particularly in the movie’s other virtuoso scene, in which she must challenge their captive to a mental duel of depravity for information. Not only does she surprise with the dark corners of her mind that she manages to stomach every day, she actually leaves us a bit disappointed in her opponent: For all the movie’s hints at a few tricks of his own, he’s down in round 1.

Now if only I could pinpoint what makes it all feel so full-blooded. It isn’t a message or even a theme per se. The movie points out flaws in the Judges and their laws, only to carry on without addressing them. As a matter of fact, it’s surprisingly easy to accept Dredd’s near-merciless brutality once we see the magnitude of what he’s up against, fighting, after all, to protect society from it. It’s also not character growth, because while there’s plenty to be found in Cassandra, the only purpose it serves past allowing her to grow on us is an impartial comparison to Dredd’s ice cold resolve. And though Dredd himself, Cassandra tells us, keeps one particular emotion “behind (his) control,” it’s never revealed. Instead of emphasizing that quality to make a statement on Dredd, it weaves it in as a strand to latch onto, helping us to appreciate him in the role he plays, not just his pistol and square jaw. Actually, I think there I at least have one example of what I’m talking about.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome: The list of reason fans might reject the third film in an action franchises is well-worn. Why, I asked, did Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome have its own little group of haters calling it the least of the three Mad Max films? Fewer cars? Watered down violence? Did it somehow contradict the other films or take the story in a different direction? Oh, of course; it’s the chapter that turns Max into the babysitter by teaming him with non-feral kids.

Actually though, it makes a certain amount of sense. Not that everyone didn’t want Max to stay the same cold-blooded road warrior forever (which I’m assuming they did), but good storytelling means continuing to advance the character after you start, not getting stuck on one note. And what else could push him to call back his soul? Wasn’t failing to protect his son what turned him into Mad Max in the first place? And isn’t everything he does in line with what we’ve seen from him in the last two movies, just leaning gradually towards his sympathy and altruism? True, the self-sufficient tribe of children with an ill-founded utopian prophecy does alter the tone of the movie in a way that some have compared to The Goonies, but it reminded me more of the Lost Boys from Peter Pan. Alright, maybe I’m not the first one to make that comparison either, but I’ll still argue it’s a good thing.

Mad Max begins in the dessert, where there are no roads, and Max now drives a would-be wagon pulled by camels. For me, the only moviegoer who never thought desserts were interesting to look at, the points in which the movie wasn’t doing anything unique and exciting were pretty much dead zones. Thankfully, there weren’t very many. Mere seconds into the story, a pilot played by Bruce Jenner (who may or may not be the same character he was in the last movie) flies by with his son and knocks out Max, stealing his possessions to sell in the savage Bartertown.

Nobody in Bartertown cares about helping Max if he doesn’t have anything to trade, so he offers up his skills, which might just be the perfect scale-tipper in the town’s power struggle. The queen who wants his help, played by Tina Turner, is technically meant to be in charge, but she and her entire town are at the mercy of Master-Blaster, one invincible man formed from two: Master, a dwarf, is the only one who knows how to make the methane-based fuel that powers the town. (You’re going to love where he gets it from.) The only way to bend him to her will is physically, which is where Blaster, a giant hulk of a man who carries Master on his back and follows his every order, comes in. And the only legal way to kill Blaster is by challenging him to a one-on-one match in Thunderdome, a domed cage used to settle disputes, where the only rule is “two men enter, one man leaves.”

One-on-one duels have been my favorite action trope ever since, ahem, Peter Pan introduced me to them, so I was looking forward to the acclaimed match in Thunderdome between Max and Blaster more than any car chase. It didn’t disappoint. It involves hanging them both from the ceiling in harnesses, allowing them to slingshot to the weapons hanging on the ceiling, and the result is a glorious scramble of a fight in which some of the best moves in professional wrestling are actually plausible. And the wait for it is only a half-hour into the runtime, although by that point, I didn’t see what else the movie had to accomplish and wasn’t in the mood to sit through more politics in Bartertown. But as usual, Max isn’t quite superhuman and can’t beat the system on his own. So when the queen becomes Max’s most formidable foe yet – surprisingly convincing with Turner’s portrayal – Max finds himself teamed with the child tribe, living in a jungle-like sanctuary several miles away. They mistake Max for the pilot who brought them there before leaving to look for remnants of civilization, expecting him to now, ahem, fly them to Tomorrow Land.

It never would have occurred to me to compare Max Rockatansky to Peter Pan, but it sort of fits. They both ran away from civilization for good when they felt the ties to their loved ones sever, even though they both still technically had someone to go home to. They’re both courageous heroes and cold-blooded killers at the same time. They’re both often pressured to forgo their self-centered existence, but they’re rarely moved by the idea. And of course, their favorite ways to get away from it all are high-speed traveling and sinking their trademark weapons into the bad guys. It not a perfect match, which it shouldn’t be, but it’s a much better allegory than, say, Superman and Jesus. The Lost Boys parallel is what helps it work as a theme: Where all of Pan’s Lost Boys manage to successfully make the journey back, only some of Max’s gang take the risk after he warns them against it. When Max goes after them and helps them complete the journey, we start to notice his reemerging soul, until he chooses to sacrifice himself to make the save he couldn’t in the first film. Max is left between the two worlds when the dust settles, and this time, we’re left thinking that he might just be able to finish the journey someday.

Beyond Thunderdome might just be my favorite of the Mad Max trilogy. It’s fun, it’s original, and it has by far the most variety. And despite what I said about car chases, it’s hard not to be excited when the group fires up a train/truck in the final act to bring us back to the franchise’s roots, kicking off a chase that’s second only to the climax of the Road Warrior, if even that. Maybe the movie’s real crime wasn’t changing what fans liked so much as giving them more on top of it.

Dystopian Crime

It took a while, with all the volunteer projects lined up, but now it’s time to get back to Cult vs. Mainstream, and – even more overdue – give my thank you to T-kun Unusual Wordsmith III for her generous gift-giving, which I sure didn’t get on top of as fast as Les or Moviefan12.

Granted, I don’t have the perfect way to return the favor, since I’m not much of a poet, and I’m hardly the resident expert on the franchises she’s expressed interest in. But luckily, she happened to send me a great suggestion for this series, pointing out that Judge Dredd has been adapted once as a mainstream movie in 1995 and once as a cult movie in 2012. I wasn’t sure at the time, since it did technically break my “same era” rule, but the way to pull it off turned out to be pretty simple: Get another franchise about a bloody avenger and/or a dystopian police force that’s gone from cult to mainstream, instead of mainstream to cult, and pair the respective films for the biggest Cult vs. Mainstream match ever!

…So what franchise meets all of the requirements, including release dates that align perfectly with the Judge Dredd movies? The Punisher flicks technically fit the bill, but who cares about those? Even Stallone’s Judge Dredd probably beats anything that series came up with. Well, The Spirit had a made for TV movie in 1987 that isn’t supposed to be too bad, so we might get an interesting match with the Stallone movie, plus a good laugh at watching the 2012 Dredd show up Frank Miller’s version. But I could only kill so much time trying to find a copy of the 1987 film, so that was out. But after desperately resorting to google searches for ideas, I remembered Mad Max, who is a dystopian cop and an antihero, who did go from cult (in the United States at least) to mainstream by the third entry, and whose series is definitely a match for the Judge Dredd franchise. For the release dates to align, I’d have to wait for next year’s Fury Road, but there’s no way I’m waiting another 8 ½ months to get on this. And Mad Max is one of those series that’s been so influential, comparisons to any sci-fi film are justifiable. It’s just too perfect. So until Mad Max 2 and Fury Road can team up for a rematch, my present to T-kun Unusual Wordsmith III is:

 And 

Vs.

 And 

Judge Dredd: “Judge Dredd wants to be both a legitimate violent action flick and a parody of one, but director Danny Cannon fails to find the necessary balance to make it work,” says the Tomatometer consensus. True. Instead, the two sides result in one goofy, lightweight action flick that doesn’t add “hard to watch” to its list of crimes. It seems to simultaneously care too much and too little, one minute giving soapbox speeches on the significance of “the law,” which Judge Dredd is appalled to be accused of breaking and the next having him gun down innocent Judges with no sense of regret. But it got a good laugh out of me more than once, and at least two of them were definitely on purpose.

Seeing the 2012 Dredd makes you realize how much further this version could have gone in convincing us of the need for law enforcement like the judges, who can execute any criminal they judge guilty on the spot. The futuristic city in this version is like a blander, polished version of Blade Runner, and we’re told that crime would be too much for ordinary police officers, even though the Judges we’re shown seem like overkill. They have all the firepower they need, and the city looks like it’s in good shape, more or less. Why is it necessary to forgo courts with actual juries?

Then again, it might be a good thing that the movie doesn’t present the strongest case for Judges. As another dystopian film that wants to attack its very premise, to criticize values that would lead to such a future, it also doesn’t make the strongest case against them. It provides “what if” scenarios in which the system is corrupted by the villains, shows us an exception to the righteousness of swift justice by punishing Dredd’s comic relief sidekick (Rob Schneider) for attempting to save his own life, and of course, attempts a tragic irony in which Dredd is convicted by the very law he “worships.” They’re all convincing reasons that such a system isn’t right, mainly because we knew as much in the first place, and we haven’t seen the strongest evidence to the contrary. But even so, the movie never goes so far as to have the heroes challenge the system head on, let alone change it, and defeating the villains doesn’t require Dredd to confront any ethical questions. No bold statements here, just a lot of robot enforcers, gun battles, and a vaguely-motivated evil twin/clone of Dredd (who picks up a sidekick played by Joan Chen so everyone has someone to fight in the climax) keeping him, his love interest, and his Rob Schneider busy. To be fair, that’s plenty of mental strain on its own, and none of these guys are presented as the type to handle much more.

If only the action were anything noteworthy, the movie could have secured its place as an entertaining blockbuster, but the bullets here fly without a sense of weight or urgency, complete with video game sound effects that make it feel like exactly that. There are some decent ideas, like an airborne motorbike chase with Dredd on a malfunctioning vehicle and a family of high-tech cannibals in the desert, in a scene Roger Ebert actually did compare to Mad Max. In these, there are a few nice shots, and one perfect moment for Dredd’s trademark line “I knew you’d say that,” but the result is still just okay.

In short, like Stargate, Bicentennial Man, Baby Geniuses, and Waterworld, Judge Dredd is a 90s sci-fi movie that’s all premise, noteworthy for presenting an idea you will remember and won’t get elsewhere but not for much else, with its unremarkable delivery. It’s a shame to look back and realize how many of these movies don’t hold up. Still, at least this one is good natured and energetic enough to be entertaining, despite and because of its stupidity. And I do like watching Stallone be funny on purpose, with everyone always a little too eager to laugh at him and not with him due to the illiterate thugs he’s known for playing. Here, he’s in on the joke, and he knows why it’s funny. If I were writing for a newspaper and this movie were in theaters, I would never suggest paying to see it. But on my modest scale of 1 to 10, flicks like this which you’re bound to stumble across at some point are what the middle-of-the-road, vaguely positive scores are for. Court is adjourned.

Mad Max: There are two things everyone seems to agree on when it comes to the Mad Max trilogy: The main reasons to show up are the vehicle chases and machismo, and the highlight is film #2, The Road Warrior. With that in mind, I wasn’t really sure how much I could expect from the series’ low budget beginnings, especially since most of its acclaim only promises that its action was impressive in 1979. It’s not unheard of for a movie’s claim to fame to be doing something first more so than doing it well.
Luckily, even by today’s standards, the car chases aren’t half bad, especially the highlighter right at the top. They’re simple, but they do a good job at giving you the fast-paced play by play. And a couple of the stunts really are a sight to behold. They at least carry themselves.

But I wasn’t sure I could say the same for the movie between them at first. We have the decaying world of the “near future,” where society is sparser and biker gangs are opposed only by ineffective road police. We have Gibson’s Max, the force’s best driver, who fears he’s becoming a sociopath himself after plowing down a few too many criminals. We have Toecutter, the gang leader played with gleeful insanity by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who vows vengeance on Max after he kills a friend. And we have the usual rape, murder, arson, and rape that comes with the territory. (Although from what I gleamed, I think one scene had the, eh, unique idea to imply that even if #1 and #4 don’t match their sexual preference, the central gang revels in any crime.) I’ll assume it all was in-and-of-itself wowing at the time. It’s all shown more for its own sake than to get us invested in anything, laying the groundwork without building on itself.

Act 2 is where the story starts moving, with Max going on holiday with his infant son and wife Jessie, a loving, genuine woman who supports Max even when his job takes a bitter turn. The vengeful gang follows them, and I had a pretty good guess as to where this was going. After all, something has to happen to turn him into Mad Max, right?

Sure enough, Jessie and her son leave for some ice cream and find themselves barred from their car by the gang, face to face with an eager Toecutter. Then something strange happens. Toecutter takes her hand and lifts her ice cream to his mouth in the most perverse way he can manage, and Jessie hesitates before slowly giving him an appreciative smile. Toecutter smiles back, giving the desperate Jessie her cue to knee him in the groin and fling open the car door, speeding back to get Max and making the only successful getaway drive in the movie. The gang follows them for a portion that plays like a home invasion thriller, with nimble Jessie spotting them and Max patrolling the area with his shotgun. Okay, now I was interested.

So what does this amount to? Simple. When Jessie and the son go the way we were expecting after all, it’s not obligatory. It’s in spite of the fact that she did everything right, in spite of the fact that she and Max are genuinely good together. Fate chose to damage the one perfect thing this dystopia permitted him. So when he takes his revenge, it’s not cathartic. It’s bitter. There’s excitement to be found when the gang proves tricky, but when it’s all over, the tone isn’t triumphant.

That Jessie’s fate is technically ambiguous goes by so fast (without being hinted at in the sequels) that many have interpreted it as a blank meant to be filled in with the obvious, as though the answer is a necessity. My interpretation is that it’s exactly what they say, nothing more or less, and Max does not sever his ties to society because it’s all he could think to do. He warned us that he was teetering on the edge, and the shove he gets is more than enough. By the end, he’s Mad Max through and through. Still, the fact that it feels so in need of a sequel, that it still doesn’t feel like its own resolution, good or bad, keeps me from adding that extra point I was considering.

The Better Movie:

Judge Dredd:

Pros:
– Fewer slow spots
– More humor
– More visual variety

Cons:
– Blatant logical fallacies and silliness
– Weaker, less memorable action
– Weaker characterization

Mad Max:

Pros:
– All practical effects and stunts
– Stronger sense of setting
– More brutal, memorable action
– Stronger vision of characters and their progression
– More historical significance as a movie

Cons:
– Takes longer to gain momentum
– More dreary and humorless
– Less sense of resolution

By reputation, you’d think this wouldn’t even be close, which for the most part, it isn’t. But looking back, there is something to be said for the simple entertainment that Judge Dredd had easier access to. It had the resources, and it wasted no time in providing the laughs and effects-fueled action that go down easy. Mad Max had nothing but visions and small time expertise, and here in the first entry, it spends as much time discovering the keys to its hardcore entertainment as it does creating it. None-the-less, when it’s all said and done, Mad Max creates something stronger, something more intense, more exciting, and more memorable. When set against each other at full speed, Judge Dredd can only spin right off the road.

Final Scores:
Judge Dredd: 6/10
Mad Max: 7/10

Winner:

So “cult” takes part one of this battle, in a demonstration of how such movies often have the motivation that mainstream movies lack, content to coast on their resources. But in part 2, we get to the real battle, with Judge Dredd going back to the drawing board with a vengeance and Mad Max bringing back the same talent with more experience and a higher budget.

Cult: 2
Mainstream: 2

Dystopian Crime

  It took a while, with all the volunteer projects lined up, but now it’s time to get back to Cult vs. Mainstream, and – even more overdue – give my thank you to T-kun Unusual Wordsmith III for her generous gift-giving, which I sure didn’t get on top of as fast as Les or Moviefan12.

Granted, I don’t have the perfect way to return the favor, since I’m not much of a poet, and I’m hardly the resident expert on the franchises she’s expressed interest in. But luckily, she happened to send me a great suggestion for this series, pointing out that Judge Dredd has been adapted once as a mainstream movie in 1995 and once as a cult movie in 2012. I wasn’t sure at the time, since it did technically break my “same era” rule, but the way to pull it off turned out to be pretty simple: Get another franchise about a bloody avenger and/or a dystopian police force that’s gone from cult to mainstream, instead of mainstream to cult, and pair the respective films for the biggest Cult vs. Mainstream match ever!

…So what franchise meets all of the requirements, including release dates that align perfectly with the Judge Dredd movies? The Punisher flicks technically fit the bill, but who cares about those? Even Stallone’s Judge Dredd probably beats anything that series came up with. Well, The Spirit had a made for TV movie in 1987 that isn’t supposed to be too bad, so we might get an interesting match with the Stallone movie, plus a good laugh at watching the 2012 Dredd show up Frank Miller’s version. But I could only kill so much time trying to find a copy of the 1987 film, so that was out. But after desperately resorting to google searches for ideas, I remembered Mad Max, who is a dystopian cop and an antihero, who did go from cult (in the United States at least) to mainstream by the third entry, and whose series is definitely a match for the Judge Dredd franchise. For the release dates to align, I’d have to wait for next year’s Fury Road, but there’s no way I’m waiting another 8 ½ months to get on this. And Mad Max is one of those series that’s been so influential, comparisons to any sci-fi film are justifiable. It’s just too perfect. So until Mad Max 2 and Fury Road can team up for a rematch, my present to T-kun Unusual Wordsmith III is:

 And 

Vs.

 And 

(Mild spoilers)

  Judge Dredd: “Judge Dredd wants to be both a legitimate violent action flick and a parody of one, but director Danny Cannon fails to find the necessary balance to make it work,” says the Tomatometer consensus. True. Instead, the two sides result in one goofy, lightweight action flick that doesn’t add “hard to watch” to its list of crimes. It seems to simultaneously care too much and too little, one minute giving soapbox speeches on the significance of “the law,” which Judge Dredd is appalled to be accused of breaking and the next having him gun down innocent Judges with no sense of regret. But it got a good laugh out of me more than once, and at least two of them were definitely on purpose.

Seeing the 2012 Dredd makes you realize how much further this version could have gone in convincing us of the need for law enforcement like the judges, who can execute any criminal they judge guilty on the spot. The futuristic city in this version is like a blander, polished version of Blade Runner, and we’re told that crime would be too much for ordinary police officers, even though the Judges we’re shown seem like overkill. They have all the firepower they need, and the city looks like it’s in good shape, more or less. Why is it necessary to forgo courts with actual juries?

Then again, it might be a good thing that the movie doesn’t present the strongest case for Judges. As another dystopian film that wants to attack its very premise, to criticize values that would lead to such a future, it also doesn’t make the strongest case against them. It provides “what if” scenarios in which the system is corrupted by the villains, shows us an exception to the righteousness of swift justice by punishing Dredd’s comic relief sidekick (Rob Schneider) for attempting to save his own life, and of course, attempts a tragic irony in which Dredd is convicted by the very law he “worships.” They’re all convincing reasons that such a system isn’t right, mainly because we knew as much in the first place, and we haven’t seen the strongest evidence to the contrary. But even so, the movie never goes so far as to have the heroes challenge the system head on, let alone change it, and defeating the villains doesn’t require Dredd to confront any ethical questions. No bold statements here, just a lot of robot enforcers, gun battles, and a vaguely-motivated evil twin/clone of Dredd (who picks up a sidekick played by Joan Chen so everyone has someone to fight in the climax) keeping him, his love interest, and his Rob Schneider busy. To be fair, that’s plenty of mental strain on its own, and none of these guys are presented as the type to handle much more.

If only the action were anything noteworthy, the movie could have secured its place as an entertaining blockbuster, but the bullets here fly without a sense of weight or urgency, complete with video game sound effects that make it feel like exactly that. There are some decent ideas, like an airborne motorbike chase with Dredd on a malfunctioning vehicle and a family of high-tech cannibals in the desert, in a scene Roger Ebert actually did compare to Mad Max. In these, there are a few nice shots, and one perfect moment for Dredd’s trademark line “I knew you’d say that,” but the result is still just okay.

In short, like Stargate, Bicentennial Man, Baby Geniuses, and Waterworld, Judge Dredd is a 90s sci-fi movie that’s all premise, noteworthy for presenting an idea you will remember and won’t get elsewhere but not for much else, with its unremarkable delivery. It’s a shame to look back and realize how many of these movies don’t hold up. Still, at least this one is good natured and energetic enough to be entertaining, despite and because of its stupidity. And I do like watching Stallone be funny on purpose, with everyone always a little too eager to laugh at him and not with him due to the illiterate thugs he’s known for playing. Here, he’s in on the joke, and he knows why it’s funny. If I were writing for a newspaper and this movie were in theaters, I would never suggest paying to see it. But on my modest scale of 1 to 10, flicks like this which you’re bound to stumble across at some point are what the middle-of-the-road, vaguely positive scores are for. Court is adjourned.

Mad Max: There are two things everyone seems to agree on when it comes to the Mad Max trilogy: The main reasons to show up are the vehicle chases and machismo, and the highlight is film #2, The Road Warrior. With that in mind, I wasn’t really sure how much I could expect from the series’ low budget beginnings, especially since most of its acclaim only promises that its action was impressive in 1979. It’s not unheard of for a movie’s claim to fame to be doing something first more so than doing it well.

Luckily, even by today’s standards, the car chases aren’t half bad, especially the highlighter right at the top. They’re simple, but they do a good job at giving you the fast-paced play by play. And a couple of the stunts really are a sight to behold. They at least carry themselves.

But I wasn’t sure I could say the same for the movie between them at first. We have the decaying world of the “near future,” where society is sparser and biker gangs are opposed only by ineffective road police. We have Gibson’s Max, the force’s best driver, who fears he’s becoming a sociopath himself after plowing down a few too many criminals. We have Toecutter, the gang leader played with gleeful insanity by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who vows vengeance on Max after he kills a friend. And we have the usual rape, murder, arson, and rape that comes with the territory. (Although from what I gleamed, I think one scene had the, eh, unique idea to imply that even if #1 and #4 don’t match their sexual preference, the central gang revels in any crime.) I’ll assume it all was in-and-of-itself wowing at the time. It’s all shown more for its own sake than to get us invested in anything, laying the groundwork without building on itself.

Act 2 is where the story starts moving, with Max going on holiday with his infant son and wife Jessie, a loving, genuine woman who supports Max even when his job takes a bitter turn. The vengeful gang follows them, and I had a pretty good guess as to where this was going. After all, something has to happen to turn him into Mad Max, right?

Sure enough, Jessie and her son leave for some ice cream and find themselves barred from their car by the gang, face to face with an eager Toecutter. Then something strange happens. Toecutter takes her hand and lifts her ice cream to his mouth in the most perverse way he can manage, and Jessie hesitates before slowly giving him an appreciative smile. Toecutter smiles back, giving the desperate Jessie her cue to knee him in the groin and fling open the car door, speeding back to get Max and making the only successful getaway drive in the movie. The gang follows them for a portion that plays like a home invasion thriller, with nimble Jessie spotting them and Max patrolling the area with his shotgun. Okay, now I was interested.

So what does this amount to? Simple. When Jessie and the son go the way we were expecting after all, it’s not obligatory. It’s in spite of the fact that she did everything right, in spite of the fact that she and Max are genuinely good together. Fate chose to damage the one perfect thing this dystopia permitted him. So when he takes his revenge, it’s not cathartic. It’s bitter. There’s excitement to be found when the gang proves tricky, but when it’s all over, the tone isn’t triumphant.

That Jessie’s fate is technically ambiguous goes by so fast (without being hinted at in the sequels) that many have interpreted it as a blank meant to be filled in with the obvious, as though the answer is a necessity. My interpretation is that it’s exactly what they say, nothing more or less, and Max does not sever his ties to society because it’s all he could think to do. He warned us that he was teetering on the edge, and the shove he gets is more than enough. By the end, he’s Mad Max through and through. Still, the fact that it feels so in need of a sequel, that it still doesn’t feel like its own resolution, good or bad, keeps me from adding that extra point I was considering.

The Better Movie:

Judge Dredd:

Pros:

– Fewer slow spots

– More humor

– More visual variety

Cons:

– Blatant logical fallacies and silliness

– Weaker, less memorable action

– Weaker characterization

Mad Max:

Pros:

– All practical effects and stunts

– Stronger sense of setting

– More brutal, memorable action

-Stronger vision of characters and their progression

– More historical significance as a movie

Cons:

– Takes longer to gain momentum

– More dreary and humorless

– Less sense of resolution

By reputation, you’d think this wouldn’t even be close, which for the most part, it isn’t. But looking back, there is something to be said for the simple entertainment that Judge Dredd had easier access to. It had the resources, and it wasted no time in providing the laughs and effects-fueled action that go down easy. Mad Max had nothing but visions and small time expertise, and here in the first entry, it spends as much time discovering the keys to its hardcore entertainment as it does creating it. None the less, when it’s all said and done, Mad Max creates something stronger, something more intense, more exciting, and more memorable. When set against each other at full speed, Judge Dredd can only spin right off the road.

Final Scores:

Judge Dredd: 6/10

Mad Max: 7/10

Winner:

So “cult” takes part one of this battle, in a demonstration of how such movies often have the motivation that mainstream movies lack, content to coast on their resources. But in part 2, we get to the real battle, with Judge Dredd going back to the drawing board with a vengeance and Mad Max bringing back the same talent with more experience and a higher budget.

Cult: 2

Mainstream: 2

My 100th blog entry was a tribute to other great Manic Expression blogs. But since the links to these blogs will soon be dead, I’m hoping that the bloggers featured on the list, if they so choose to upload them again, can post the new links here, so I can update accordingly for my own sake, if nobody else’s. Some have already done so, and I don’t want to leave out anyone who wouldn’t want to be. (Then again, it’s hardly the biggest honor you’re ever going to receive, so don’t feel obligated.)

Now that the switch to the new website is complete, it’s safe to say we’ve lost a share of fine blogs and videos. Some contributors were no longer around to carry over their work, some only found a select few worth holding on to, and some chose not to bother, using this as a chance to start fresh. But with no concern for modesty, I decided to carry over every last thing. Not that people will want to read all of them, but I think there’s value in remembering what you’ve done and how you’ve grown (especially in my case, in which the total number, including crossovers, has warranted all of one mile marker). And yes, that includes the bad ones, which have value as the best lessons on what to avoid, as well as in today’s blog, where we look back for a good laugh at the densest things I’ve ever done in this blog. As always, it’s the top 9, because I wasn’t really that bad, was I?

9. “Video Games: Art or Something Else?” Not enough point and too much “something else.

Let’s get the dullest example over with first. This was just a sub-par attempt. There actually was a point to it, inspired just as I’d settled comfortably into the “yes they are” point of view by the counterpoint that sports and puzzles are not usually considered art, which made the opposition suddenly seem much clearer (and stronger). But whatever insight I might have been able to bring to the table got lost in beating around the bush, until it ultimately played like just another attempt to push the question the internet was tired of answering. Actually, I did later find a way to bring this back with more success: A debate forum with me as the entire opposition. (I think I’ll give the belated award to best job refuting me to Ratin8tor, by the by.)

8. “The Top Ten Cutest Animated Children in Movie History.” Boo only in 8th?!

My list of the cutest animated children is still one of my favorite blogs to revisit, but it includes a particular choice that rubbed a few people (including my own friends and family) the wrong way: Boo, the adorable little girl from Monsters Inc., is only ranked 8th, clearly outside the cream of the crop. And the description is mildly appreciative at best.

Here’s the thing: I saw Monsters Inc. when I was 10, and I wasn’t prone to falling for “cute” kids when I was barely removed from that stage myself, with baby brothers making it seem obligatory. I missed the boat, and preparation for the follow-up trip included Richard Roeper’s criticism of the character, which I could sort of understand. Granted, I didn’t go in cold to what people love about her, and I would defend the choice to an extent (Boo had her antics and a few sweet moments, which just doesn’t hit as hard as the more heartfelt exploration of Lilo or Dumbo), but I probably still graded too hard. For one, I would take back my decision to let seniority be a scale-tipper for Penny, whose moments were more forced and decidedly less-endearing for it. In fact, at second glance, Boo’s comedic moments may even be a match for Agnes, over in 6th place. But to avoid a long debate there, let’s just settle for a clean posthumous swap of 7th and 8th place, a simple case of a split decision overturned in the recount… please?

7. “From the Files of a Non-Brony: Green Isn’t Your Color.” Well, it still doesn’t mean you should be seeing red.

I started From the Files of a Non-Brony purely on a hunch that it might be fun as a sort of side project, never expecting it to become my longest-running series to date and one of my best-received. In fact, the unexpected appeal probably came from the fact that instead of just being tough-but-fair, I ended up enjoying myself and siding with the bronies – who made up most of the audience in the first place – more often than not. But readers were quicker to see the good thing we had going than I was, and I just couldn’t get over the notion that these multicolored singing ponies were winning me over too easily. So when I finally found an episode I didn’t like, I unloaded everything I hadn’t been able to say, sheer speculation and all. Definitely a case of overkill, considering it lasted all of 1 episode, and fans, who didn’t consider it a weak one anyway, didn’t see the problem in the first place.

Actually if it were as bad as all that, I would have ranked it higher, but I actually think more good than harm came from this one. Not only did it add variety, setting up a memorable moment when the next one turned out to be a knockout, but it served as a mile marker for how the series would later grow on me, at a point when I started calling similar missteps a genuine, unexpected shame. Still, I definitely didn’t make myself look good with the excess of cynical speculation that didn’t come true, and the fact that fans seem to like Green Isn’t Your Color probably makes it a hated entry regardless.

6. “The Most Triumphant Endings in Movie History…” and no Shawshank Redemption?

This is another one I had a good time writing, and I would defend all of the choices that I made. But there’s a huge, glaring omission without one of the most beloved movies of all time, even on the honorable mention list, implying that I didn’t even think its powerful ending was noteworthy. In fact, this is one of those times where I couldn’t hide the fact that I’m still a very young filmgoer: I hadn’t seen it at the time. And wow, is that a delay that came back to bite me. Actually, even now, there are many all-time greats I’d be embarrassed to admit I haven’t gotten to, and the list only keeps getting longer. To make matters worse, I have to find time on my own, since nobody wants to watch them while hanging out. “An ‘all-time great?’ Boring! Let’s watch Scary Movie 3.”

5. “Pittsburgh Against the World” My, aren’t you a big shot.

Ironically, I think most of the best entries in this series were the ones that didn’t end up published on that website I touted. I’m glad I acknowledged up front that this was nothing more than a volunteer project for a college website, because it only amounted to two entries there before the whole crew apparently collapsed in disorganization and hit the reset button. But it’s not as though much more ever would have come from this. My biggest disappointment, looking back on this series, is that it’s really just more of my standard vs. matches in a format that seems to drag out both points a little too much.

4. “The Top 5 Behaviors Hacking Meaning Clean Out of the Holidays.” Breathe, oh righteous one.

This one actually makes me cringe a little in hindsight. I suppose I can see what I was going for, but it’s a little too jumbled to meet its full potential. More importantly, however, it becomes a little too obvious in its progression. After all, even considering the fact that I tried tying it into movies in a way that might have been clumsy, the first three examples are just sort of generic criticisms of poor holiday spirit. But starting at #2, the awkward twist, it all comes into focus as a nearsighted attempt to build to an optimistic, “encouraging” viewpoint from the other side of the fence, and it comes off as too slushy for its own good after what came before. Now, if the switch had stayed closer to the tone of #2 and further from the tone of #1, it might have stayed above water, and buried in there is a message I’d still like to vouch for. (Maybe I’ll find a way to bring it back in a more direct and effective approach, as with the video games blog.) But as is, well, good thing nobody actually read it.

3. “Hayao Miyazaki vs. Don Bloth” Sorry, but not even they would take over a year to duke it out.

It was going well. My debut series was slowly generating interest and even faring pretty well with the Outstanding Content of the week committee. Then my series and I just disappeared, letting my college schedule get the best of me. That was bad enough, letting the momentum grind to a screeching halt, but it was redeemable. In fact, come Christmas time, I managed to use the long break from my semester schedule to do just that, turning the 8th entry of 10 into my second OCofW win. But after that, I started to really show the inconsistency that has probably been my biggest problem. Instead of taking the opportunity to rethink the schedule and rebuild , I went back to doing what I did before, submitting the occasional English class papers that happened fit the bill and hoping a bigger project that could be used both ways would come along. Pittsburgh Against the World seemed to be the answer, but we all know how that turned out, leaving this series buried and my blog with no subject. I might have salvaged something with my idea to release the final portion on the anniversary of the first entry, but I failed to finish it in time, putting half of it up on the right date and the other half an unceremonious two weeks later. Suffice to say, both halves didn’t garner much interest, ending the series with a whimper.

2. “The Top Ten Original ‘Gangnam Style’ Songs,” you say?

Just a mild reformatting might have made this entry a lot clearer, say if I’d removed “Gangnam Style” from the title and taken the time to clearly establish that this was a list of the best “campy” songs that generated the same appeal. But that never crossed my mind, because from the start, this was only ever a lame ambition to take advantage of a passing trend. Part of it was me overestimating how much people wanted to talk about it. (For a few weeks, it was a part of every other conversation on my campus), but it would have been salvageable if I would have just stuck to common sense and made sure to avoid becoming too gimmicky.

Actually, I wouldn’t say there’s nothing to take away from this one. I still think all of these choices are good goofy entertainment, and I managed to have some fun talking about them the way I did. But the confused and tacky premise still probably makes it my worst attempt at a blog.

1. “Nod to a Lost Talent” Not really just a nod anymore, is it?

We interrupt this elbow in the ribs to myself for an unfortunate moment of “seriousness.”

I’m not proud of this one. This was one of those aforementioned college papers I decided to use along the way. The movie in question wasn’t all that noteworthy (and in hindsight, I probably snubbed it on the one thing it did achieve, finding an interesting way to make a poignant statement on gambling), but I did think it was worth noting Ted Demme, whose story cut tragically short did sadden me on a certain level. So I used it as an excuse to mention him and tip my hat, a brief and standard gesture. But then, in my opinion, I took it too far by attempting to get credit for it, submitting it for outstanding content of the week.

I’m not saying that such a topic should bar you from doing so. Taking the time to write something worthwhile about such a difficult notion probably deserves it all the more. But in my case, the point was only to draw attention to it, and trying to get credit for that on its own would have been exploitative. It’s an unfortunate example of how caught up I was, at the time, in trying to make progress with these entries, and I can only be glad that I came to my senses and withdrew it. Now it’s my little reminder of a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

With that all finished, here’s hoping that you have learned an important lesson about the value held even in your lesser works. Or just that you thought it was funny and stuff.