Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

[y2jman]

well i was very suprise to see walmart nor sam goody didn't carry mgm mad max bluray they had the other 2

i didn't want to do steelbook it would cost more sam goody if got fury road and i skip shout factory

so i fire up got anthology i can't wait to watch it this weekend

[brownstones19]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Will there be a sequel to this?

Possibly, Miller wants to do one has it nearly ready or just flat out ready (The Wasteland I think is the title). But it might be after he strikes a DC deal with WB (MOS2 is rumored) since Mad Max did fine but not "great" at the box office; WB knows that Mad Max and Miller are brilliant and very beneficial, but are likely using the box office reports as leverage. And while I'd prefer to see another Mad Max film first, if MOS2 is what it takes to make another, then that's what it takes.

[poke smot]

Originally Posted by y2jman

well i was very suprise to see walmart nor sam goody didn't carry mgm mad max bluray they had the other 2

i didn't want to do steelbook it would cost more sam goody if got fury road and i skip shout factory

so i fire up got anthology i can't wait to watch it this weekend

Sam goody still exists?

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

Finally saw this for the first time last night.

It's a very good, adrenaline-fueled film, but to say it's anything other than a mindless action movie is ridiculous imo.

It's a very well made mindless action movie...but a mindless action movie nonetheless.

Dialogue-wise, it has none of the wit and substance of the original trilogy.

There's too much CGI for my taste.

Basically it's just a non-stop series of CGI-driven action scenes.

There's very little to chew on thematically.

Fun movie to watch for sure, as long as you're not looking for anything more than shallow, surface-level fun.

...at least that's my opinion.

This film is a lot of things, but "mindless" is not one of them. Maybe you need to watch it a second time.


And really? CGI-driven action scenes? I think not. CGI-enhanced action scenes would be a much more accurate description.

You should check out some of the docs that show what was really captured in-camera. It's pretty amazing, imo.

[Gold Ranger]

Anthology is too expensive.
1, 2 and 3 are each normally a $5.oo title!

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

This film is a lot of things, but "mindless" is not one of them. Maybe you need to watch it a second time.

What are the great intellectual/philosophical/thematic elements that I missed?

The issue of

[Show spoiler]water scarcity

was brought up at the very beginning and then disappeared for the rest of the movie.

I don't remember any great conversations or scenes with profound dialogue that delved into the issues behind the devolution of civilization or the political remnants of a post-apocalyptic society.

I liked the film and plan to watch it again very soon.

But all I saw the first time was a lot of adrenaline-fueled action sequences.

...and yeah they were fun.

And in response to your edit, there was a lot of CGI in most of the major scenes. Not as bad as a Star Wars prequel, but a long ways away from the gritty naturalism of the original trilogy.

[obscura]

PQ-wise, this is one of the best looking blu-rays I've seen to-date.

[dr. wai]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

What are the great intellectual/philosophical/thematic elements that I missed?

The issue of

[Show spoiler]water scarcity

was brought up at the very beginning and then disappeared for the rest of the movie.

I don't remember any great conversations or scenes with profound dialogue that delved into the issues behind the devolution of civilization or the political remnants of a post-apocalyptic society.

I liked the film and plan to watch it again very soon.

But all I saw the first time was a lot of adrenaline-fueled action sequences.

...and yeah they were fun.

And in response to your edit, there was a lot of CGI in most of the major scenes. Not as bad as a Star Wars prequel, but a long ways away from the gritty naturalism of the original trilogy.

We wouldn't have gotten a great, memorable character out of Furiosa if the movie was a "mindless action movie". Furiosa is one of the best action movie characters to come out of the genre in the last ten years.

Michael Bay makes "mindless action movies". George Miller has created an action movie that has great characters, who don't need to talk to be smartly written, and some of the best action scenes I have ever seen.

[schlock]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

We wouldn't have gotten a great, memorable character out of Furiosa if the movie was a "mindless action movie". Furiosa is one of the best action movie characters to come out of the genre in the last ten years.

Michael Bay makes "mindless action movies". George Miller has created an action movie that has great characters, who don't need to talk to be smartly written, and some of the best action scenes I have ever seen.

There are varying degrees of mindless. Michael Bay is the lowest; that doesn't automatically make everything else brilliant, deep or metaphysical.

And in "the last ten years" - ya, if you're grading Fury Road on that, sure it looks great compared to 10 years of lousy CGI and superhero dreck, but does everything have to be judged on such a low grading curve just because all other summer movies are so wretched these days? Can't anything still have more substance than just non-stop action? I think Xena Warrior Princess had a million times more depth than Furiosa, but whatever cooks your goose.

And I did like Fury Road for what it was, but all the practical effects were slathered with enhancements and CGI that it was really hard to tell so much of it was actually practical. Give me the barren realism and desert landscapes of ROAD WARRIOR any day.

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade that truly loves this film, but the platitudes laid on this film as if it's some sort of literary masterpiece of psychology and deep character drama is just getting a bit ridiculous.

[dr. wai]

You are mistaking CGI for matting. There is plenty of CGI in Fury Road, but only where it is needed. The rest is the matting of objects into one scene. Sometimes this was done because of the way the scene was shot. Other times, like the tanker explosion, was done this way because the explosion was so big that it would have put a lot of people in danger.

Watch the blu-ray special features. Most of this movie was done for real.

Also, Fury Road is nothing BUT barren realism and desert landscapes. In fact, Mad Max 2 has less dessert in it.

[y2jman]

Originally Posted by poke smot

Sam goody still exists?

yep in my little town it used to be oncue the sales folks including the manager gets to wear grey fye tshirts

they should just rename the place fye why sam goody i'm not real even website is fye at least sam goody is better then sorry oncue

[schlock]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

You are mistaking CGI for matting. There is plenty of CGI in Fury Road, but only where it is needed. The rest is the matting of objects into one scene. Sometimes this was done because of the way the scene was shot. Other times, like the tanker explosion, was done this way because the explosion was so big that it would have put a lot of people in danger.

Watch the blu-ray special features. Most of this movie was done for real.

Also, Fury Road is nothing BUT barren realism and desert landscapes. In fact, Mad Max 2 has less dessert in it.

That's why I also said "enhancements" which can include matting and composites - or especially color timing, which to me is what really made everything look so artificial, even if it was real. The film looks great, I'll give it that, but realism is not what I got from it - at all. Maybe there's more desert in Fury Road (it's also 1/2 hour longer that TRW), but it's fake looking desert, sorry. I'll watch the special features and I'm sure I'll be more impressed with the practical nature of all the stunts in those more than how they look in the final 'enhanced' film. And I know there are many tricks with cinema dating back to the beginning of film history, and many of my faves have mattes and other devices - it just seems like such a waste to do all these amazing stunts practically and then slather it all over and make it all look fake in the end.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

You are mistaking CGI for matting. There is plenty of CGI in Fury Road, but only where it is needed. The rest is the matting of objects into one scene. Sometimes this was done because of the way the scene was shot. Other times, like the tanker explosion, was done this way because the explosion was so big that it would have put a lot of people in danger.

Watch the blu-ray special features. Most of this movie was done for real.

Also, Fury Road is nothing BUT barren realism and desert landscapes. In fact, Mad Max 2 has less dessert in it.

I'm probably not as technically knowledgeable in this area as you, so I'll take your word for it. But whether it's CGI or "matting" as you put it, it doesn't look like real in camera effects in many cases. It certainly doesn't have the raw, down-and-dirty, visceral impact of The Road Warrior in that sense. At least it didn't for me.

Look I'll second what was posted previously and say that I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade either. It's a good film...it's a cool film. But I kept hearing people slobbering over it as though it's some kind of legitimate cinematic masterpiece.

...and I just didn't see it on my first viewing.

[Michael24]

The only place where CGI was obvious to me was the sandstorm sequence. Otherwise, nothing else looked "fake" to me and I thought all of the matting and enhancements were done very subtly as to not stand out. When I saw some of the before and after shots, even I was stunned by how much actually was done for real and the CGI was generally used for things like background and environment enhancements. I felt Fury Road demonstrated how to expertly use special effects to a film's advantage. And when vehicles flipped, crashed into each other, exploded, etc., I loved that they were doing it for real and not with CGI-created vehicles.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by dr. wai

We wouldn't have gotten a great, memorable character out of Furiosa if the movie was a "mindless action movie". Furiosa is one of the best action movie characters to come out of the genre in the last ten years.

Michael Bay makes "mindless action movies". George Miller has created an action movie that has great characters, who don't need to talk to be smartly written, and some of the best action scenes I have ever seen.

We wouldn't have gotten a great, memorable character out of Furiosa if the movie was a "mindless action movie"

Personally I didn't think she was that memorable of a character.

What exactly was it that made her so memorable? The fact that she was a badass and had a great fight scene with Mad Max? The fact that she

[Show spoiler]was trying to get home and her home was no longer there?

That could've been cool if they'd actually taken the time to explore the angle with something other than sad, pensive shots of Charlize Theron looking angry about something. And I didn't think Charlize Theron's performance was anything spectacular. At least her line readings weren't spectacular.

...certainly not in the same league as Sigourney Weaver's performance in the Alien movies.

[Jay Mammoth]

The 3D was great on this Blu.

[dr. wai]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

We wouldn't have gotten a great, memorable character out of Furiosa if the movie was a "mindless action movie"

Personally I didn't think she was that memorable of a character.

What exactly was it that made her so memorable? The fact that she was a badass and had a great fight scene with Mad Max? The fact that she

[Show spoiler]was trying to get home and her home was no longer there?

That could've been cool if they'd actually taken the time to explore the angle with something other than sad, pensive shots of Charlize Theron looking angry about something. And I didn't think Charlize Theron's performance was anything spectacular. At least her line readings weren't spectacular.

...certainly not in the same league as Sigourney Weaver's performance in the Alien movies.

She is a strong female character who isn't defined by the fact that she is a female. She isn't at any different than any of the other characters and she doesn't need any badass lines explaining things she does. (Like when Max continually misses a long range shot and Furiosa takes the gun from him and makes the shot. In a standard action movie she would have said that her dad taught her or something else.)

I think that she can and will stand in the same league as Sigourney Weaver. Fury Road is just the beginning of what this character can do.

[UNCMT9]

You're reading way too much into this, Ray.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

You're reading way too much into this, Ray.

Maybe I am.

But I felt that there was more to read into with the original trilogy.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by UNCMT9

You're reading way too much into this, Ray.

Well, a lot of reviews have claimed the movie as the ultimate all time masterpiece of cinema. Ray is making good points about some of the films short comings. I've seen Charlize Theron in other movies and some of her performances have blown me away. She was amazing in Monster and I loved Young Adult even though both characters are despicable in their own way. She did a fine job as Furiosa but I don't think the part was as meaty as those other roles I mentioned. Looking at the behind the scenes stuff, it does look like it was her toughest role physically.

By the way, for you twentysomthings...wait until your kids tell you that this movie is "too dated" and "boring" twenty years from now! You'll be disappointed the way I'm disappointed when I say Mad Mad 2 (The Road Warrior) is a kick ass action film and one just gets a glazed look.