Lethal Weapon review

 Number 675 on the top 1000 films of all time is the action thriller Lethal Weapon

Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is a hot headed army veteran with PTSD, traumatised from the recent death of his wife. He is partnered with the older and more experienced Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) to solve the mysterious suicide of a young woman during Christmas. 

Lethal Weapon was very much emblematic of 80's action films. It was corny, bombastic with campy dialogue and a very Mel Gibson performance. Despite all this, I really enjoyed the film

I'm not big on the action genre yet like Die Hard, I thought Lethal Weapon was a thoroughly entertaining film. The cheesiness, car chases, gun fights and explosions only added to the spectacle. 

I really enjoyed the chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. I don't much rate Mel Gibson as an actor - there is probably a reason he has won Oscars for directing/producing and not acting - but he and Danny Glover played well off each other.

They were certainly the most memorable parts of the film - much of the film's action sequences have blurred into one and the villains weren't particularly noteworthy.

I admit I enjoyed Lethal Weapon more than I thought I would. I thought it would be 2 hours of corny dialogue, hammy action and endless explosions and while it was all that, it was entertaining all the same.

Mad Max review

 Mad Max does not feature on the top 1000 films of all time. However, its sequel does. It only made sense that at some point I would go back and watch the original.

Mad Max is set in a post-apocalyptic, near-future Australia where law and order has all but collapsed. Motorcycle gangs rule the road while the few remaining police try to keep control. One such officer is the maverick Max (Mel Gibson) who swears revenge on the bikers after they kill the policeman. 

Upon watching this I could see why it wasn't on the top 1000 films of all time. Granted some of my criticisms can be attributed to the film's meagre 350k budget, but a film doesn't need a large budget to be a good film.

Firstly, the genre of the film didn't match the content. For the post-apocalyptic film, the Australian roads and infrastructure was remarkably intact. Reportedly this was because the post-apocalyptic aspect was little more than an after-thought. Director George Miller couldn't afford lots of extras and half-destroyed set pieces, so he made the film post-apocalyptic. He also couldn't afford stunt performs, so the lead actors largely did this own stunts.

Speaking of lead actors, Miller also lacked the budget for high-profile stars hence why a twenty-one year old Mel Gibson was cast as Max. I think there's a reason why Mel Gibson has won Oscars for directing and producing. Like other directors/actors, he is much better as the former than the latter. He was rather hammy as Max.

Across the board, the acting wasn't great. The villains in the motorcycle gang soon blended into one. It didn't help they were also lumbered with clunky dialogue and strange acting choices like how the bikers would make weird animal noises. Joanne Samuel was also pretty bland as Max's wife Jessica, but in fairness, Jessica had all the charisma of a stale ham sandwich.

Ultimately, I was left disappointed by Max Max. Considering it launched a massive world-wide franchise I was expecting something more but I was left with very little.