Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

[Firecrackker]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

Although, to be sure, isn't that, like, the whole point of reviews? To steer us in the direction of one film, versus another film, based upon quality?

I guess it could be if you're trying to decide what to watch. But if you've had your heart set on watching PP2 then do a switcharoo then in my opinion you're easily swayed. It's the same thing as if a movie you wanted to watch gets bad reviews, and you end up skipping it. People should make up their own opinion. Regardless, that wasn't the point of my post.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

Although, to be sure, isn't that, like, the whole point of reviews? To steer us in the direction of one film, versus another film, based upon quality?

no

[WhatALovelyDay]

Originally Posted by Firecrackker

I'm getting annoyed at all the morons who bash Pitch Perfect just because it's going up against Mad Max. Literally every box office article has someone in the top comments who I guarantee hasn't seen Pitch Perfect 1 or 2 completely bash it. Do these people realize these are different genres, and most people don't care about how well a movie is reviewed? People pay their $$ to watch whatever they want. It would be completely idiotic and downright sheep-ish to initially want to watch PP but go see MM just because it's getting better reviews.

Agreed. People are acting like movie theatres are only letting people see ONE or the other, not both. If people want to see both they will, eventually. I chose Mad Max over PP2 this weekend (because all I saw on twitter was people and celebs raving over MM), but plan on seeing PP2 within the next week hopefully.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

Although, to be sure, isn't that, like, the whole point of reviews? To steer us in the direction of one film, versus another film, based upon quality?

No. A well-writer review should point out the merits of a film, so YOU can decide IF you want to potentially see it. But quality critique writing went out the window with the Internet, where ever "blogger" is now a writer with "insight" (see "ain't it cool news"). That's the reason Ebert never liked giving a movie star ratings, because people would just look at the stars and then complain if they didn't like a movie that he did - because they didn't take to the time read what he wrote.

Pitch Perfect has plenty of good reviews, too. Different market, different demographic. The Mad max audience is split between that and Avengers, whereas there's (typically) nothing out there for women to go see, so they flock to something like PP en masse. And to be honest, Mad Max is at least a bit overrated. It's a very good action film, but the lack of characterization for Max (especially after re-introducing him to a new generation after 30 years) and little to no plot hurts the film, whether fanboys want to admit it or not. If this was Transformers, the same critics would be lamenting the characters, writing, plot, etc all while still praising the visuals and action.

[#Darren]

I thought Mad Maxine was a pretty good film.

Not sure why her mentally retarded sidekick had a bad speech impediment though?

[MifuneFan]

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Impossible

no

What's the point then?

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

People keep saying that there were no characters to care about in Mad Max: Fury Road.

I personally found it easy to empathize with Furiosa, the breeders, and Nux. I even cared for what happened to Max, since he's trying to get himself out of such a fix early in the movie.

I do not agree with the hyperbole about this being the greatest action movie in decades, but it's a quality flick and a nice surprise for this summer.

Take Nux out and the movie is so much stronger. So much time is spent on him. His arc just doesn't make much sense with just turning his back on everything he's pretty much ever known (or what we know of) so quickly. I also found him a bit annoying and had a hard time understanding anything he was grunting. Subtitles will be huge for this movie.

[BaronVH]

I find it amusing that people have issues with the characterizations in Fury Road. First of all, it is about 80-90% action. The fact that the story is so cohesive and the characters are as deep as they are is testament to the quality of the film. It is not overrated. It is on par or better than any action movie that has been made. Yes, it is one chase. No, you don't learn the character's life stories. Yes, the characters meant to be mysterious still are at the end. The Road Warrior was a staple for discussion in film lecture classes and film schools. This movie will be as well. There really hasn't been anything like it. It deserves every bit of the critical reception is has been given, but if you don't like wild action movies, it will not change your mind. Or maybe it will.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by JeffTheMovieGuy

I hope the art drops soon and its not some generic poster piece.

bro the movie came out 2 days ago

[just1nj]

This poster is cool. Regal was giving it away this weekend. Probably won't see it for a cover though.



I'm hoping one version will use this..

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I find it amusing that people have issues with the characterizations in Fury Road. First of all, it is about 80-90% action. The fact that the story is so cohesive and the characters are as deep as they are is testament to the quality of the film. It is not overrated. It is on par or better than any action movie that has been made. Yes, it is one chase. No, you don't learn the character's life stories. Yes, the characters meant to be mysterious still are at the end. The Road Warrior was a staple for discussion in film lecture classes and film schools. This movie will be as well. There really hasn't been anything like it. It deserves every bit of the critical reception is has been given, but if you don't like wild action movies, it will not change your mind. Or maybe it will.

The Road Warrior (Mad Max 2) is a superior action film. I liked Fury Road and it's ten times better than Thunderdome but there is a bit of hyperbole going on with this whole "Best action film ever" stuff. It's impressive, no doubt, but with the Road Warrior there is more build up to the action. For me that's the foreplay that's missing in today's action films. When it's all action, action, action, one does become almost numb to what's happening on screen. You observe the action instead of being invested in what's at stake for the characters.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by WhatALovelyDay

Agreed. People are acting like movie theatres are only letting people see ONE or the other, not both. If people want to see both they will, eventually. I chose Mad Max over PP2 this weekend (because all I saw on twitter was people and celebs raving over MM), but plan on seeing PP2 within the next week hopefully.

I saw Max Tuesday night and Perfect 2 Friday night. Max is my favorite of the two but damn does Perfect 2 have some great music. There was also some great choreography in the latter. I just hated some of the side stories and the clichėd ending for Pitch Perfect 2.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by BaronVH

I find it amusing that people have issues with the characterizations in Fury Road. First of all, it is about 80-90% action. The fact that the story is so cohesive and the characters are as deep as they are is testament to the quality of the film. It is not overrated. It is on par or better than any action movie that has been made. Yes, it is one chase. No, you don't learn the character's life stories. Yes, the characters meant to be mysterious still are at the end. The Road Warrior was a staple for discussion in film lecture classes and film schools. This movie will be as well. There really hasn't been anything like it. It deserves every bit of the critical reception is has been given, but if you don't like wild action movies, it will not change your mind. Or maybe it will.

While I did like the movie quite a bit, I don't get people saying "There really hasn't been anything like it." The Road Warrior was almost just like it, only 34 years ago. People say Fury Road is a non-stop chase, which technically is true, but it's hardly non-stop action. One huge chase at the beginning and one huge one at the end (and the motorcycle piece in the middle when they first go through the valley). Every Mad Max movie has a big chase at the beginning and one at the end (except Thunderdome, which has Bartertown instead).

I still say the characters - while archetypes - weren't fleshed out enough, but the main problem is Max himself. He is nothing like the Max of the original 3 films, in speech or mannerisms. I get that its a different actor, but since absolutely zero backstory is given for new viewers (except that he was "a cop"), he really comes across as a shallow, character-less "hero" if you don't know the context of the other films. A stronger first act that sets up Max better would've made the film a classic, instead of the weird

[Show spoiler]he's captured a minute in and held hostage for 30 minutes while doing nothing, and has visions of a little girl that is never explained when fans know he had a wife and son that were killed.

It's a mess that maybe a longer cut would explain better, but as it stands leaves much to be desired until Max finally breaks free.

The film's biggest flaw is calling itself mad Max, when he's a supporting character who just goes along with the action instead of, like The Road Warrior, makes an active choice to help. He had an arc in TRW. He doesn't have one in FR.

[Dwayne Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

While I did like the movie quite a bit, I don't get people saying "There really hasn't been anything like it." The Road Warrior was almost just like it, only 34 years ago. People say Fury Road is a non-stop chase, which technically is true, but it's hardly non-stop action. One huge chase at the beginning and one huge one at the end (and the motorcycle piece in the middle when they first go through the valley). Every Mad Max movie has a big chase at the beginning and one at the end (except Thunderdome, which has Bartertown instead).

I still say the characters - while archetypes - weren't fleshed out enough, but the main problem is Max himself. He is nothing like the Max of the original 3 films, in speech or mannerisms. I get that its a different actor, but since absolutely zero backstory is given for new viewers (except that he was "a cop"), he really comes across as a shallow, character-less "hero" if you don't know the context of the other films. A stronger first act that sets up Max better would've made the film a classic, instead of the weird

[Show spoiler]he's captured a minute in and held hostage for 30 minutes while doing nothing, and has visions of a little girl that is never explained when fans know he had a wife and son that were killed.

It's a mess that maybe a longer cut would explain better, but as it stands leaves much to be desired until Max finally breaks free.

The film's biggest flaw is calling itself mad Max, when he's a supporting character who just goes along with the action instead of, like The Road Warrior, makes an active choice to help. He had an arc in TRW. He doesn't have one in FR.

But isn't Furiosa enough to make this a masterpiece? Everything else is just added bonus.

[Mr.F]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

While I did like the movie quite a bit, I don't get people saying "There really hasn't been anything like it." The Road Warrior was almost just like it, only 34 years ago. People say Fury Road is a non-stop chase, which technically is true, but it's hardly non-stop action. One huge chase at the beginning and one huge one at the end (and the motorcycle piece in the middle when they first go through the valley). Every Mad Max movie has a big chase at the beginning and one at the end (except Thunderdome, which has Bartertown instead).

I still say the characters - while archetypes - weren't fleshed out enough, but the main problem is Max himself. He is nothing like the Max of the original 3 films, in speech or mannerisms. I get that its a different actor, but since absolutely zero backstory is given for new viewers (except that he was "a cop"), he really comes across as a shallow, character-less "hero" if you don't know the context of the other films. A stronger first act that sets up Max better would've made the film a classic, instead of the weird

[Show spoiler]he's captured a minute in and held hostage for 30 minutes while doing nothing, and has visions of a little girl that is never explainedi when fans know he had a wife and son that were killed.

It's a mess that maybe a longer cut would explain better, but as it stands leaves much to be desired until Max finally breaks free.

The film's biggest flaw is calling itself mad Max, when he's a supporting character who just goes along with the action instead of, like The Road Warrior, makes an active choice to help. He had an arc in TRW. He doesn't have one in FR.

Did you actually see the whole thing? Does he not decide to help when

[Show spoiler]he goes out by himself to kill the people shooting at them when they are stuck in the mud? Does he not decide to help when he ran after Furiosa and the other girls as they went out to the salt flats and gave them a better plan instead? Does he not decide to help when he saves Furiosa in the end?

And how does he not have a character arc? In TRW he was just a loner that had a change of heart and decided to help the people. Here he is haunted by the memories of people he wasn't able to help, whether it was because he couldn't or because he didn't want to. And so, here he redeems himself by helping not only Furiosa and her girls, but the entire citadel have better lives

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Mr.F

Did you actually see the whole thing? Does he not decide to help when

[Show spoiler]he goes out by himself to kill the people shooting at them when they are stuck in the mud? Does he not decide to help when he ran after Furiosa and the other girls as they went out to the salt flats and gave them a batter plan instead? Does he not decide to help when he saves Furiosa in the end?

And how does he not have a character arc? In TRW he was just a loner that had a change of heart and decided to help the people. Here he is haunted by the memories of people he wasn't able to help, whether it was because he couldn't or because he didn't want to. And so, here he redeems himself by helping not only Furiosa and her girls, but the entire citadel have better lives

I just heard a mic drop.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Mr.F

Did you actually see the whole thing? Does he not decide to help when

[Show spoiler]he goes out by himself to kill the people shooting at them when they are stuck in the mud? Does he not decide to help when he ran after Furiosa and the other girls as they went out to the salt flats and gave them a better plan instead? Does he not decide to help when he saves Furiosa in the end?

And how does he not have a character arc? In TRW he was just a loner that had a change of heart and decided to help the people. Here he is haunted by the memories of people he wasn't able to help, whether it was because he couldn't or because he didn't want to. And so, here he redeems himself by helping not only Furiosa and her girls, but the entire citadel have better lives

Yep, saw it all. He decides to help because he's already stuck in that situation. He didn't make a choice to be there, since he was a prisoner for 30 minutes doing nothing.

His arc in TRW was bigger than that. Go back and watch it again. He was a hollow man who found compassion again and even became a "father figure" to the feral kid, mimicking the kid he lost. And now he;s haunted by all these people he supposedly couldn't save, even though that all happens off screen and is given no context or backstory.

Which is, again, part of the problem with act 1. It fails to set up MAX, the movie's namesake, and give him a clear goal, whereas Furiosa was then with the had a motivation, goal, and arc. She was the main character, but since the movie is called Mad Max, it should've set him up better.

Originally Posted by Dwayne Hicks

But isn't Furiosa enough to make this a masterpiece? Everything else is just added bonus.

Yeah, she was great. But the movie wasn't called Furiosa. It was called Mad Max.

[Dwayne Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yeah, she was great. But the movie wasn't called Furiosa. It was called Mad Max.

But then that's just disappointment in the title. Shouldn't be a biggie I bet someone makes a custom cover with Furiosa as the title.

[Mr.F]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Yep, saw it all. He decides to help because he's already stuck in that situation. He didn't make a choice to be there, since he was a prisoner for 30 minutes doing nothing.

His arc in TRW was bigger than that. Go back and watch it again. He was a hollow man who found compassion again and even became a "father figure" to the feral kid, mimicking the kid he lost. And now he;s haunted by all these people he supposedly couldn't save, even though that all happens off screen and is given no context or backstory.

Which is, again, part of the problem with act 1. It fails to set up MAX, the movie's namesake, and give him a clear goal, whereas Furiosa was then with the had a motivation, goal, and arc. She was the main character, but since the movie is called Mad Max, it should've set him up better.



Yeah, she was great. But the movie wasn't called Furiosa. It was called Mad Max.

Well, couldn't you say that he did what he did in RW because he was already in that situation?

[Show spoiler]He took the injured man to the fortress because he promised him fuel. He then went and got the truck because he was going to get something out of it. And then, the way I see it, he helped them in the end partly out of the goodness of his heart, but also because he had a bruised ego after he was caught and nearly killed by Hummungus's people

Also, I don't know if you've seen other George Miller films, but he's not always someone who bothers with exposition vomit. We only know about what drives Max in RW because of the first one, but it very much works on it's own although his family is only mentioned during one scene. In the Witches of Eastwick we are not explicitly told why these women can make things magically happen, but with a couple of seemingly throw-away lines in the middle, we know. With Happy Feet we learn what's happening with the fishes just as Mumble is learning it, and the exposition dump doesn't happen until the end. Even his true-life film, Lorenzo's Oil is about parents doing research and slowly learning about their son's disease.

So, you may call the lack of background a weakness, but that's George Miller for you.