Here at Max, Mike; Movies, we’ve seen things you people can’t imagine. Attack ships on fire some place or other. Something or other glittering off the Tannhauser gate, whatever that is. And lots of other stuff. You can’t imagine it. Don’t even try. You’ll just hurt yourself. This week’s “Leave ‘Em Wanting More” deals with the sequel that we had no idea we wanted, a movie that came right on the heels of the original . . . give or take 35 years: “Blade Runner 2049.” Sadly, I missed Blade Runners 2 through 2,048 (man, that who knew they could churn them out so fast?), so maybe that’s why I don’t entirely “get” this movie but a movie doesn’t have to be “got” to get good. Get it? Got it? Good. So grab some juicy grubs and a handful of bees, cuddle up close with your beloved virtual significant other and check out our thoughts on the antics of Officer K (no relation to Agent K) and the whole wacky crew of this feel-good cheerful sci-fi romp! Now with ten percent real Harrison Ford!
Welcome to a sequel that I bet a bunch of people didn’t know was a sequel! Yes, Mel Gibson’s first outing as Max Rockatansky (yes, the character has a last name) in 1979 wasn’t exactly widely distributed (or known) over here in the States; the initial release even had Gibson’s voice dubbed, for fear that his thick Australian accent? would baffle U.S. audiences. Okaaay, sure. Here’s a sequel that at the very least is more memorable than the original. Is it as good? Better? Does it have more mohawks, leather outfits, and butt-less leather pants? Yes, I’d say that’s a pretty fair bet. So, join us for this week’s Mad Max, Mad Mike; Mad Movies (we’re just mad about movies! Ah heh heh heh . . . heh . . . I’ll stop now, I’m so sorry). It’ll be humongous!
Welcome, dudes, to another of our, like, “Leave ‘Em Wanting More” . . . thing. ‘cuz we’re talking about, y’know, sequels and stuff . . . so, like, you ever think that maybe we’re all living in, sort of a big computer game or whatever? And we don’t, like, even know it and junk? Yeah . . . yeah . . . us too . . . and, like, did you ever want a really involved explanation of why all this is happening and like have guys make what seems like a cool idea pretty much . . . what’s the word . . . incomprehensible? Yeah, us too! Whoa . . . is that a coincidence, or some kind of conspiracy, dude? Whoa. Yes, we all liked the original Matrix (well, for the purposes of this paragraph, let’s assume we all did). But what happens when a sequel comes out with more fights, more action and what everyone REALLY wanted: lots more vague and confusing explanations for what happened in the first movie! Yeah! Because THAT’S what people wanted in the follow-up to a visually remarkable kick-ass action movie: more exposition! Heaps more! Do we get that in this movie? How much? Does it help? Does it make sense? Despite all our rage, are we still just rats in a cage? Tune in to find out the answers, except probably for that last one.
From the people who brought you “Max, Mike; Movies” comes “Max, Mike; Movies II: The Returning Revenge of the Origins to the Future of the Next Generation on Fury Road.” In other words, we’re starting a new series called “Leave ‘Em Wanting More” and it’s all about sequels! Sequels, sequels and more sequels. Those things that Hollywood used to carefully consider creating but now it’s “Your movie made five dollars over it’s budget? Sequels! Lots of sequels! Must have forty sequels!” [actual transcript of meeting with Famous Hollywood Producer Who Shall Remain Imaginary]. But let’s face it: there are sequels and there are sequels. Some sequels are shameless cash grabs, some are dictated by an adapted medium and some exist . . . for eldritch reasons beyond time and space, where if you think about it too hard your spleen will turn into a third kidney. It happens more often than you’d think. This week, we’re talking about one of those rarest of beasts, a sequel that many believe is actually superior to the original, Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part II.” Does it surpass the original? Does it equal the original? Give a listen and see what we think. Why do we do this? Because this is the business we have chosen.
What is love? Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more . . . ow! Dang, I hurt my neck doing that head-bob thing. Here we are at the final episode of “Isn’t It Romantic” and what exemplifies romance more than those three little words: “you’ve got mail.” So many songs written about them . . . We’ve got another movie written by Nora Ephron and starring Meg Ryan (so it’s GOTTA be good), and it involves that most timely, never-dated online service: America Online! Where my AOLies at? Prodigy peeps? CompuServers? GEnie G’s? Oh lord, I’m so old . . . Anyway, in the days before easy access to the internet, people found love on these services and on these services only (having meet-cutes in bars or restaurants was a class 1 felony). And that’s how this week’s couple, Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks meet. Is it cute? Does this remake of a 1940 Jimmy Stewart/Margaret Sullivan movie charm and delight? Plug in your 28.8k modem and download this week’s episode! Should only take two or three hours.
Welcome to another in our “Isn’t It Romantic” series! This week, we are down with the street, down with our bad selves, and down with love. No, I do not in fact have any idea what any of that means, but we’re discussing that tribute to the so-called “sex comedies” of the 60’s “Down With Love,” which I’m sure you’ve all seen. . . which I’m sure many of you have seen . . . which I’m sure some of you have seen . . . c’mon, it’s the end of January, how can I possibly be hearing crickets? Well, it stars Rene “You Had Me At Hello” Zellweger and Ewan “Please For the Love Of God Stop Asking Me About Star Wars” McGregor and at least Mike and I have seen it. Some call this a tribute to the Doris Day/Rock Hudson sex comedies like “Pillow Talk.” Some call it a parody of the same. Some call it a schnauzer rolling around in Dijon mustard while declaiming in Aramaic but those people are getting the help and medication they need. What do we call it? Give a listen and find out.
Oh, Meg Ryan, you are truly the Meg-est of the Ryans! So adorable, with your tousled hair and your scrunched up little grin. You’re just SO GREAT, aren’t you? You can just get away with anything, can’t you? Sure, when your character in this week’s “Isn’t It Romantic” fakes an orgasm in the middle of a deli, it’s “adorable” and an “iconic moment of comedy” but when I do the same thing in a supermarket, it’s “public indecency” and “an arrestable offense” and “don’t make me hit you with the taser again, weirdo.” Sheer unfairness. But that’s Meg Ryan all over . . . As you’ve no doubt surmised, we’re talking about “When Harry Met Sally,” one of the most well-known rom-coms of the late eighties, starring Miss Adorable over there and Billy Crystal. Everyone knows the scene I mentioned earlier but how many of you have actually seen the entire movie recently? Does it hold up? It’s been a while. Give a listen and please accept our personal guarantee that neither Mike nor I are faking our opinions in this discussion.
Do you want to be rich? Sure, we all do! But how about being crazy rich? And also Asian? Well, do we have a movie for you. Do we? Of course we do. Why else would you be here? This week’s entry in our “Isn’t It Romantic” series is our most current movie . . . although 2018 does feel like a long time ago. But anyway! This week’s movie is one of the most successful romantic comedies of the last decade, adapted from the first in the successful book trilogy by Kevin Kwan. Is the story original? Weeeellllll . . . but the cast is certainly distinctive and the locations are remarkable and the moral is uplifting: being rich is great. For those of you who were wondering, it seems that having a crap-ton of money can be really nifty. I’ll let you absorb this shock. Once you have, give a listen to us: we’re not Asian, we’re not rich, but . . . well, one out of three ain’t bad! Hmm, actually it is pretty bad. Well, please listen anyway.
When you think of the screen couples whose sizzling hot chemistry lit up the screen and made movie audiences curiously sweaty, you think of Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore in “Ghost”, Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger in “9 ½ Weeks”, and of course . . . Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon in “Harold and Maude”? . . . Did I read that wrong? Yes, in this week’s episode of “Isn’t It Romantic” we’re tackling the romance between a suicide-obsessed twenty-something and a free-spirited septuagenarian . . . as so many love stories do. We’ve got a movie here with a rather . . . unexpected romantic relationship, loads of groovy Cat Stevens music and arguably (well, argued by me) one of, if not the, coolest cars in cinema history. Seriously, forget the Batmobile, forget Bond’s Astin Martin . . . I want a Jaguar hearse and I want it now! Anyone got one? I’ve got a slightly used pony to trade! Give a listen and find out what we think about this unlikely screen pairing. And hey, if you want to sing out, sing out!