There two main film review sites in the UK that I check and both are prone to hyperbole (Empire famously gave Attack of the Clones 5 stars), but it's rare that they both give 5 stars for any given film.
And yet, they both given top marks for Mad max: Fury Road, a film I had pretty much zero interest in from the trailers as it looked like a bad rehash of Mad Max 2. Now it's looking like a must see. Anyone caught a sneaky preview yet?
The truth is I’m angry about the extents Hollywood and the director of Fury Road went to trick me and other men into seeing this movie. Everything VISUALLY looks amazing. It looks like that action guy flick we’ve desperately been waiting for where it is one man with principles, standing against many with none.
But let us be clear. This is the vehicle by which they are guaranteed to force a lecture on feminism down your throat. This is the Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic. And this is the subterfuge they will use to blur the lines between masculinity and femininity, further ruining women for men, and men for women.
I'm having trouble even believing this site is real. It's so incredibly stupid. I feel like one of those poor people on Facebook who mistakenly argue against articles by The Onion.
If you look at the rest of the site, its very anti-feminist.
So a strong female supporting character in an action role might offend these 'real men'.
I wonder what they thought of Long Kiss Goodnight?
However on reading some of the articles, thanks for the link, I find them a hilarious change from the feminist bombardment in the mainstream press.
It's a guilty pleasure.
I never realized that Mad Max was a piece of American culture until I read that guy's article.
This part was a hoot:
The real issue is not whether feminism has infiltrated and co-opted Hollywood, ruining nearly every potentially-good action flick with a forced female character or an unnecessary romance sub-plot to eek out that extra 3 million in female attendees.
Master & Commander has virtually no female characters. It was nominated for Best Picture along with nine other Oscars (and won two of them). Some conspiracy.
The MRA review made me less skeptical about all the good press Fury Road has been getting.
The truth is I’m angry about the extents Hollywood and the director of Fury Road went to trick me and other men into seeing this movie. Everything VISUALLY looks amazing. It looks like that action guy flick we’ve desperately been waiting for where it is one man with principles, standing against many with none.
But let us be clear. This is the vehicle by which they are guaranteed to force a lecture on feminism down your throat. This is the Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic. And this is the subterfuge they will use to blur the lines between masculinity and femininity, further ruining women for men, and men for women.
...and that pretty much confirms I'm gonna go watch it. Woohoo!
Have to say I probably didn't expect reviews to be this good !
Even the Guardian gave it a good review, and normally 4/5 stars are reserved for twenty-minute French shorts featuring a woman sat smoking in a darkened room.
Looking forward to seeing it this weekend, wonder if it will be worth hitting the Imax for?
Awesome. Totally stoked for this. I would go to see it even if it got utterly terrible reviews, as i'm a huge mad max fan, but the fact it's getting good reviews is all the better.
I've been excited about this film for a while. Real stunts and little CGI - awesome.
But then the review on the telly this morning had me a bit worried. The review was glowing, funnily enough, but the things it raved about had me worried. It said the Mad Max design was taken to the nth degree, pointing out the flamethrower guitar thing as a good example. It said it was like something Baz Luhrmann would make, and while the reviewer meant that as a compliment, anyone who's seen Australia or Moulin Rouge and isn't an awful, awful person knows that making anything in the style of Baz Luhrmann is not a good thing.
So hopefully it isn't too camp, or too ridiculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know how crazy much of The Road Warrior was, but there the insanity was all in the characters, who'd responded to the apocalypse by just not giving a gak anymore. The world itself was still pretty real (as much as you'd expect in an action movie, anyway). So now I’m a little worried that Miller has the feel right. But certainly not worried enough to not see the movie.
Stop it Sebster You can sugar coat it all you want but we in the US of A know damn well and good your looking for steller ideas on being a Road Warrior when society goes down the cropper
It managed a "Buy it on Blueray" rating (sitting above "A good time no alcohol required" and beneath "Awesometacular") fro Jeremy Jahns, so I'm game. I actually picked up the art book today too (I'll stick count that down as a hobby expense). Pity its all just wide cinematic shots though instead of concept art. Not very good for using as a source for basing models on I mean. =/
sebster wrote: I've been excited about this film for a while. Real stunts and little CGI - awesome.
But then the review on the telly this morning had me a bit worried. The review was glowing, funnily enough, but the things it raved about had me worried. It said the Mad Max design was taken to the nth degree, pointing out the flamethrower guitar thing as a good example. It said it was like something Baz Luhrmann would make, and while the reviewer meant that as a compliment, anyone who's seen Australia or Moulin Rouge and isn't an awful, awful person knows that making anything in the style of Baz Luhrmann is not a good thing.
So hopefully it isn't too camp, or too ridiculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know how crazy much of The Road Warrior was, but there the insanity was all in the characters, who'd responded to the apocalypse by just not giving a gak anymore. The world itself was still pretty real (as much as you'd expect in an action movie, anyway). So now I’m a little worried that Miller has the feel right. But certainly not worried enough to not see the movie.
So you're fretting about two words in a movie review done by some TV bozo, even as GLOWING reviews continue to pour in for this film?
I have to question whether you're worthy to see it in the first place. Max is disappointed in you and thinks you should grow a pair.
sebster wrote: I've been excited about this film for a while. Real stunts and little CGI - awesome.
But then the review on the telly this morning had me a bit worried. The review was glowing, funnily enough, but the things it raved about had me worried. It said the Mad Max design was taken to the nth degree, pointing out the flamethrower guitar thing as a good example. It said it was like something Baz Luhrmann would make, and while the reviewer meant that as a compliment, anyone who's seen Australia or Moulin Rouge and isn't an awful, awful person knows that making anything in the style of Baz Luhrmann is not a good thing.
So hopefully it isn't too camp, or too ridiculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know how crazy much of The Road Warrior was, but there the insanity was all in the characters, who'd responded to the apocalypse by just not giving a gak anymore. The world itself was still pretty real (as much as you'd expect in an action movie, anyway). So now I’m a little worried that Miller has the feel right. But certainly not worried enough to not see the movie.
So you're fretting about two words in a movie review done by some TV bozo, even as GLOWING reviews continue to pour in for this film?
I have to question whether you're worthy to see it in the first place. Max is disappointed in you and thinks you should grow a pair.
Not really. You can buy a pair and the plus size you can have a choice of color
had no real reason to be bad guys besides "just because" which was kinda lame. Usually the dictators have ideals or goals but these guys just wanted some women...
In saying that though I thought it was the most "real" looking movie I have seen in a while. To be honest, I cant think of many obvious computer animations in the movie besides the storm and the people being flung from cars. It all looked pretty real otherwise.
I thought the bald guy had the best character and the only properly developed character (as in we know the bald guy better than anyone else by the end of the film). I think the director needs to keep characters interesting, unless having no past was the goal.
My signature weapon in any wasteland survival RPG is the... C4 strapped to spear. Honestly anything explosive on a stick. Glad to see that used in the movie.
Overall, an above average meh. The setting seemed awesome (im a setting man, not a story man, prefer exposition and the beginning of movies when the setting is set) but the story kinda got less interesting as time went on.
However, it was better than the first Mad Max which I could not for the life of me understand. I gathered he was a cop trying to hold justice in the outback Judge Dread style but even then.
My signature weapon in any wasteland survival RPG is the... C4 strapped to spear. Honestly anything explosive on a stick. Glad to see that used in the movie.
Sounds like someone been playing a little classic Imperial Guard!
Words are insufficient for describing how gloriously insane this film is and fantastically REAL as well (bar a short detour through a CGI sandstorm which is actually pretty cool).
After a decade of 80's franchises feebly trying to reclaim the glory days, George Miller has finally done it and arguably surpassed the original films in the process.
gorgon wrote: So you're fretting about two words in a movie review done by some TV bozo, even as GLOWING reviews continue to pour in for this film?
I have to question whether you're worthy to see it in the first place. Max is disappointed in you and thinks you should grow a pair.
When I asked him about it Max called me sugar tits and starting talking about the jews. The apocalypse has been rough on Max.
When the two words are Baz Luhrmann, it's worth fretting about. Hopefully the reviewer, who I don't know, was an idiot and used Luhrmann to describe anything that's over the top. But anyhow, I've been pumped about this film for a long time now, it's traditional to have a freakout and worry if it will actually be any good just before it's released.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: However, it was better than the first Mad Max which I could not for the life of me understand. I gathered he was a cop trying to hold justice in the outback Judge Dread style but even then.
The first film is an odd thing. It's basically just another film in the fairly brief period of Ozploitation - where thanks to some favourable government rules and really cheap local talent Australia was able to make films really cheaply, and they found that the best return on low budget was trashy, high violence nonsense.
So Mad Max was made. Basically George Miller, the director, thought car accidents and road fatalities would be pretty good source of film carnage. To give that a plot, he took the basic 'lone cop battles criminal lunatics with no help from the system', and then instead of having shootouts in the city, he set it in the outback to justify the car chases. To make the over the top story more believable he added the bit about fuel shortages leading to social collapse.
The film made a stupid amount of money, so they went and made a sequel that's basically a completely different kind of movie.
I have heard good buzz from people I trust. B-movie lovers.
They have never steered me wrong... well except maybe Starcrash..... or Ator : The Fighting Eagle.... or possibly The Undertaker and his Pals.... or maybe when they suggested.... oh nevermind.
It was a 120 minute nerdgasm for me. Loved every bit of it.
Make sure to bring a mop and bucket
Rather than just following the in style of the old films It built a lot on the genre that it started. The originals set the genre standard that later movies, rpgs and comics expanded on but never quite broke the mold on IMO. Fury Road was like taking all of those efforts back to school and showing them how it should be done, it takes all the craziness of more modern stuff like Borderlands and casts it back into the original Mad Max setting. It was way over the top and crazy in a way that the original movies hinted at but had been held back on due to ratings, low budgets, and technical constraints. This seemed to be much more in line with the vision he'd started with but was able to grow and mature by not having to reign anything in. The budget allowed for some absolutely amazing visuals in the movie and the restrained use of CGI was a really nice touch that helped make everything feel much more real.
My one fear when watching the film was that the action seemed to be winding down towards the end and we weren't going to get another glorious set piece of metal on metal carnage to match the earlier scenes.
This fear turned out to be unfounded and at the point where the film could have ended naturally (and very boringly), they literally turn around and do it all again
Question: the original Mad Max trilogy depict a linear progression of sorts, both in terms of character development - ie Max's journey from 'normal' to burnt out and back out again and in terms of societal decay - the first film takes part in a society of sorts, albeit one that is collapsing and degrading. Does this new film show any of that 'back story' about Max and the world in which he lives or does it jump straight into the full bore insanity of the second film with armoured fuel tankers and a re-imagined Lord Humungous?
filbert wrote: Question: the original Mad Max trilogy depict a linear progression of sorts, both in terms of character development - ie Max's journey from 'normal' to burnt out and back out again and in terms of societal decay - the first film takes part in a society of sorts, albeit one that is collapsing and degrading. Does this new film show any of that 'back story' about Max and the world in which he lives or does it jump straight into the full bore insanity of the second film with armoured fuel tankers and a re-imagined Lord Humungous?
The movie discusses the past through narration, and there are flashbacks, but it begins after society has already broken down into the Road Warrior-type environment.
If you liked the first films, don't even think twice. Just go see it. You won't be disappointed.
filbert wrote: Question: the original Mad Max trilogy depict a linear progression of sorts, both in terms of character development - ie Max's journey from 'normal' to burnt out and back out again and in terms of societal decay - the first film takes part in a society of sorts, albeit one that is collapsing and degrading. Does this new film show any of that 'back story' about Max and the world in which he lives or does it jump straight into the full bore insanity of the second film with armoured fuel tankers and a re-imagined Lord Humungous?
Yeah, they touch on the backstory in very quick (i.e. less than a second) flashbacks which has clearly affected his mental stability (he is definitely a bit mad in this one). Mostly though, this a spiritual sequel/remake to Mad Max 2 (The Road Warrior) with a much longer chase and if anything, the focus is just as much about Charlize Theron's character as Max himself.
sebster wrote: I've been excited about this film for a while. Real stunts and little CGI - awesome.
But then the review on the telly this morning had me a bit worried. The review was glowing, funnily enough, but the things it raved about had me worried. It said the Mad Max design was taken to the nth degree, pointing out the flamethrower guitar thing as a good example. It said it was like something Baz Luhrmann would make, and while the reviewer meant that as a compliment, anyone who's seen Australia or Moulin Rouge and isn't an awful, awful person knows that making anything in the style of Baz Luhrmann is not a good thing.
So hopefully it isn't too camp, or too ridiculous. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know how crazy much of The Road Warrior was, but there the insanity was all in the characters, who'd responded to the apocalypse by just not giving a gak anymore. The world itself was still pretty real (as much as you'd expect in an action movie, anyway). So now I’m a little worried that Miller has the feel right. But certainly not worried enough to not see the movie.
Well, I would say that they nailed it! Went to see it as a break today, and man... I just have never seen anything like this. They created an "ecosystem" where, with a little suspension of disbelief, everything actually makes sense in relation to one another.
I was thrilled with the movie! I will also say, it was not gory like I expected - the violence felt right at home for the nature of the movie. And it's basically like one big car chase...! Again, never seen anything like it, and I think they absolutely nailed what they were going for.
9.5 / 10 for me
Note: I have not seen the originals, and didn't feel like they were needed to have seen at all (although reading above I'm sure I would have understood more of the setting / backstory if I had).
just got back from watching this in 3D .... being someone who also plays Orks of course my mind went into overdrive ... so many ideas now .... all i could think of was Waaaaagh! most of the movie ...
The band-wagon with guitar guy was absolutely awesome. Movies always have mysterious guitar solos following the car chases. This just gave an in movie reason for it.
To the constant refrain of "Furiosa is the main character" ... I kind of wonder if people have seen/correctly remember Road Warrior. In that movie, Max's plot line is ... he's looking for gasoline. That's it. Along the way, he encounters a group of people with a more complex story already under way and he gets roped into that, during which time we catch a glimpse into his character before he melds back into the wasteland. And that's exactly what happens in Fury Road.
I guess it's just handled better in Fury Road because no one (even including Max) gets much direct characterization in Road Warrior. Now, I'm not saying that is a coincidence (or mistake). My impression is, Miller used indirect characterization to communicate the brutal indifference of the movie's setting. As Pappagallo says to Max in reference to the latter's past, and indeed to every possible past, you think that makes you special?
Fury Road is a lot more personal. While we have to guess at where Papagallo and the Lord Humungous come from in Road Warrior, we have a better sense of Furiosa's background and that in turn gives us more insight into her motivations, which naturally makes her more sympathetic. Furiosa becomes the vehicle character for the audience and it is ultimately through her that we catch this latest glimpse at the elusive Road Warrior.
Contrast this to the movie of that name, where Max himself serves as the audience's vehicle. It doesn't work as well because the movie is explicitly framed as the recollections of the Feral Child. But we don't follow the Feral Child's POV at all during the course of the action. The ending of Road Warrior is therefore less satisfying than that of Fury Road, although the same thing happens story-wise in both movies. This is because we have been seeing so much more through Furiosa's eyes; thus that final look she shares with Max makes a stronger emotional impact.
I've just seen it and thought it was amazing, utterly relentless and yet packed in enough characterisation to make people interesting and defined. Other people's comments are spot on, this is a film in which Max, and through him the audience, are just along for the ride, the opening of the film has Max saying life is only about survival. Really, everyone else is more interesting as Max is just passing through.
The only thing I wasn't clear on is why the three groups were keen to work together when only the one had any stake in the return of the women. Perhaps there was something I missed.
I don't recall the Mad Max films well, I assume this is a reboot rather than continuation of any sort. A huge amount of fun that my girlfriend really enjoyed despite reservations. She thought the female characters were all very strong and positive.
The only thing I wasn't clear on is why the three groups were keen to work together when only the one had any stake in the return of the women. Perhaps there was something I missed.
I got the impression at some point in the movie that the three groups were led by three brothers.
But I'm not 100% sure that's correct.
Silenzz explanation makes sense enough either way.
Manchu wrote: To the constant refrain of "Furiosa is the main character" ... I kind of wonder if people have seen/correctly remember Road Warrior. In that movie, Max's plot line is ... he's looking for gasoline. That's it. Along the way, he encounters a group of people with a more complex story already under way and he gets roped into that, during which time we catch a glimpse into his character before he melds back into the wasteland. And that's exactly what happens in Fury Road.
I guess it's just handled better in Fury Road because no one (even including Max) gets much direct characterization in Road Warrior. Now, I'm not saying that is a coincidence (or mistake). My impression is, Miller used indirect characterization to communicate the brutal indifference of the movie's setting. As Pappagallo says to Max in reference to the latter's past, and indeed to every possible past, you think that makes you special?
Fury Road is a lot more personal. While we have to guess at where Papagallo and the Lord Humungous come from in Road Warrior, we have a better sense of Furiosa's background and that in turn gives us more insight into her motivations, which naturally makes her more sympathetic. Furiosa becomes the vehicle character for the audience and it is ultimately through her that we catch this latest glimpse at the elusive Road Warrior.
Contrast this to the movie of that name, where Max himself serves as the audience's vehicle. It doesn't work as well because the movie is explicitly framed as the recollections of the Feral Child. But we don't follow the Feral Child's POV at all during the course of the action. The ending of Road Warrior is therefore less satisfying than that of Fury Road, although the same thing happens story-wise in both movies. This is because we have been seeing so much more through Furiosa's eyes; thus that final look she shares with Max makes a stronger emotional impact.
Just a note about the villain in The Road Warrior. Lord Humongous wasn't meant to be quite as ambiguous as he was in the final cut. The biker gang Max is fighting were actually former cops that he used to work alongside (note all the leather police uniforms and gear). Lord Humongous has a deleted scene that explained why he was so badly burned, talked about loss all the time and used the standard issue police pistol. Aye he was one of Max's old cop buddies from the first film, the guy who's burnt alive by the gang, but we never see him actually die.
The same goes for other characters like Master Blaster, though canonically people will bitch about this to no end. That character's played by the same actor and acts similarly to a character from the first film. Though by the same token the mechanic from the first and second films is the same actor, even though he died in the first film, and the pilot is supposed to be different people too (...the director must have really wanted to keep on that guy). Heh, or even in the latest film where the villain is played by the same guy who played Toecutter in the original.
The titular Fury Road describes a line between a masculine society struggling to sire genetically viable heirs and a feminine society struggling to coax literal fruit from the sour earth. The journey of the characters is about reconciliation between man and woman. The future of the planet is at stake, both in terms of humanity's survival and the restoration of the ecosystem. The future requires both a father and a mother.
Like any great protagonist, Furiosa personifies the story's larger conflict. In the Citadel, Furiosa is not considered a woman because she is barren. Even her title is masculine. The redemption she seeks is tied to this alienation from her own gender; therefore she liberates Joe's harem. She cannot have literal children, and in that sense be a 'real' woman (per the misogynistic vision of Joe), but she can become the figurative mother of a better future. For Furiosa, redemption is about reclaiming her womanhood implying that the sinfulness that needs redeeming is masculine.
Immortan Joe personifies sinful masculinity. He has created a brutal society organized entirely around his own tainted virility, which is in turn symbolized by the water he controls. From his figurative seed has sprung an empire of death: the fuel and armament monopolies are Joe's feudal vassals. Joe's is the anti-seed the Dag mentions: "plant one and watch it destroy." The Brides beg Furiosa to liberate them because they refuse to be the mothers of this future. They leave under the banner "our children will not be warlords." When the Dag later complains that she is pregnant with an ugly warlord, the Keeper of the Seeds wistfully reminds her that her child could be a girl. This is another expression of the worldview that masculinity is evil (the Mothers even hold men destroyed the world).
But Max arrives to upend that worldview. As Furiosa struggles to reclaim her womanhood, Max struggles to reclaim his manhood. By 'manhood' here we mean in the moral rather than biological sense. In the opening voiceover, Max tells us he has been reduced to one animalistic instinct: survival. We then see him captured and dehumanized/objectified into a blood bank for Nux. We also see that he is tortured by visions of those he failed to save, especially a little girl who calls him Pa (who symbolizes the world's past). As Max and Furiosa learn to trust each other, Max recovers his humanity and more especially his manhood: he is shown to be a provider, a protector, and a wise counselor.
The partnership between Max and Furiosa ultimately shows us that good men and good women are not very different when it comes to what makes them good. This insight is itself the reconciliation of man and woman. Furiosa survives to triumph, symbolized by the pouring of the 'virile' water into the earth, because she is herself infused with Max's own vitality, his blood. Max is the good man -- the universal donor who roams the wastes for all mankind, as per the epitaph, in search of our better selves.
Lol, to be fair to Manchu, the film does convey a surprising amount with the bare minimum of dialogue. Other films would bludgeon you with exposition and back story speeches.
I thought it was pure, unbridled awesomeness. One does have to wonder a bit how they have the resources to modify all those vehicles so extensively, but who cares? Max Max is all about how the vehicles are as twisted and insane as the people driving them!
I loved it, and especially with all the incredible practical special effects involved, both my buddy and I think the actions scenes in Fury Road topped those in Age of Ultron, hands down.
The only thing I wasn't clear on is why the three groups were keen to work together when only the one had any stake in the return of the women. Perhaps there was something I missed.
I got the impression at some point in the movie that the three groups were led by three brothers.
But I'm not 100% sure that's correct.
Silenzz explanation makes sense enough either way.
From what I saw, the three leaders were still brothers. One of them calls Immortan Joe "Danny" at one point I tihnk.
So there's a familiar obligation.
But then they also have the mutual symbiosis of what each is providing for the others, as mentioned, which they want to keep up.
I thought he called him "Daddy" in response to going after the wives. Also the criticism about so much spending of resources on a "family dispute".
All I know is that Immortan Joe is the next best thing to a tech-priest and that I'm pretty sure the movie was not set in Australia, but on Mars during the days before the Emperor showed up- or maybe just on Earth during the same time. Also, when Max fought Rictus, I commented to my buddy that, "Hey, it's Bane vs. Bane!" and he almost sneezed his soda.
Also, when Max fought Rictus, I commented to my buddy that, "Hey, it's Bane vs. Bane!" and he almost sneezed his soda.
Thats good.
EDIT: The problem is, with an action movie this good, almost everything else is going to suck in comparison this year. None of the comic book movies are doing it for me this year, so how am I gong to get my action movie fix before the thinking movies start later this year? Yargh!
Also, when Max fought Rictus, I commented to my buddy that, "Hey, it's Bane vs. Bane!" and he almost sneezed his soda.
Thats good.
EDIT: The problem is, with an action movie this good, almost everything else is going to suck in comparison this year. None of the comic book movies are doing it for me this year, so how am I gong to get my action movie fix before the thinking movies start later this year? Yargh!
I thought the same thing in regards to the new Star Wars. It may end up being a fun film, but its hard to imagine any CGI exhibition matching this movie, so it will likely seem underwhelming by comparison. Of course, 7 months is a long way away.
For me, this is the new standard in action films, and I hope it triggers a trend whereby more directors tone down the CGI for more models and more actual stunts.
I hope so too. Its hard to top a good car chase on the action front though, and MM films always combined car chases and close combat. Hard to top that.
Spoiler:
And I just loved the bang stick spears and drums/flamethrower guitar. HOLY gak!
The one real CGI moment: the storm was also excellently done. Being in tornado country, it was especially vibrant.
Definitely the best film I have seen so far this year. It was funny in some ways the amount of explosions and action going on made me think of one of the Avengers or Transformers films, but in this it seemed so much more.. genuine(?) I don't know the right way to explain it. Of course, it might have just been the amount of real props and stunts being used, rather than CGI, but at no point did I feel like I was being driven along with the Hollywood corporate hype train of neatly commercialised action movie.
The film felt like an artist's labour, rather than a box-ticking exercise.
Saw it and enjoyed it quite a bit. A lot has already been said so no need to go into all that other than to say if you like the last two (first is interesting but kind of odd considering) you will certainly enjoy this and if you haven't seen a Mad Max film before go and see it anyway.
When Donald rumsfeld said "you don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have" he was clearly talking about a vehicle whose sole purpose was to carry drums and a huge guitar amp setup.
Thought the mobile gig was utterly bad ass, if you are going to hunt down a renegade in an armoured big rig who has stolen your wives, you have to do it in style.
Totally badass movie, they should paint their skin green and grunt the whole time. There are so many ork elements in this, battlewagon grabby claw, tankbustas, flash gitz, bikers, all sorts of orkky vehicles.
The plot is great too, though watching for the 1st time you may have missed some of it. GW need a movie like this.
I am what’s called a fetal amputee. Fancy way for saying I was born with a missing limb. I’ve written about this on here before, but it’s been a long time and I’ve gained a lot of new followers recently (hai guyz) so it might be news to some of you.
I finally wound up going to see this movie Monday night after work, by myself, cause I was too thirsty for it and couldn’t wait for my friends to be available. Everyone was out of town this weekend for various reasons, so I figured I’d just wait for someone to go with, but then Facebook started talking about how amazing it was and I just couldn’t put it off any longer. So that’s how I ended up in a theater last night, completely by myself – not another soul in the room, sobbing my eyes out.
Because you guys. I am turning 30 years old next week. I’ve been a fan of action film my entire life. And I have NEVER seen a physically disabled, kickass, female lead character in a Hollywood movie EVER – not once, until yesterday.
(SEMI-SPOILERS AHEAD)
I am just about the biggest advocate for “representation matters” there is, but as a white woman I never really felt it applied to me all that much. Watching Fury Road, I realized how wrong I was. I’ve been this way my entire life and I’ve never felt “handicapped.” I’m disabled, yes – there’s gak I just can’t do, but an invalid I am not. For the most part I’ve always approached life with a “figure out how to do it and just get it done” attitude; I am loathe to admit I can’t do anything and I never give up without exhausting all the possibilities available to me. Watching Fury Road, I felt like I was watching my own struggle brought to life (albeit in a very fantastical setting), and I don’t think I ever realized how truly profound that could be for me.
Watch Furiosa load a shotgun. Watch Furiosa punch Max in the face, with her nubbins. Watch Furiosa drive a semi tractor trailer. Watch Furiosa fire a long shot, using Max’s shoulder to stabilize the gun barrel, as an alternative to using two hands! Watch Furiosa do anything you can do, but better, and with half the number of fingers.
The effortless manner in which this film has presented a character’s disability is incredible. I literally could not ask for anything more. It’s ubiquitous. No big deal. Her body is never a plot point. It is simply allowed to be. Let’s have some bullet points:
- The existence of her missing hand is never mentioned in dialogue. Not once. I find this simple fact so powerful.
- It is not made into something ludicrous for the lulz a la the gun leg in Grindhouse. Her prosthetic is realistic – it looks like something a real amputee would actually wear and use.
- There’s no reference made to any tragic backstory regarding her limb. We have no idea how she lost it, or if she lost it. It may very well be a birth defect. More on that later, cause that’s totally my interpretation.
Let’s compare this to characters like Ephialtes from 300. Though Leonidas treats him with kindness, it’s made pretty clear that Ephialtes is a cripple. He’s not going to be a soldier. He is ultimately worthless to the cause of the Spartans. Pretty sure if Furiosa had shown up in that story, she would have taken one look at him, shook her head at Leonidas for shame, and set to work building Ephialtes a custom set of armor and a robot hand to hold his shield in proper Spartan formation. There, problem solved, bb. Now get yourself off to war and have a good time.
In addition to being a total badass, the TRULY amazing thing about Furiosa is that she is also KIND, EMOTIONAL, AND COMPASSIONATE. The main plot of the film is her struggle to help these women escape abuse and slavery, to return to her homeland and family, and find peace in a simple life, away from war and suffering. She transcends the female action star stereotype of the unfeeling hard ass. It’s as if she were an actual human being, with real emotions and struggles, not reduced to a caricature of human existence. Buh-whaaaat?
In conclusion. This movie is feminist. It is powerful. It presents ability in a realistic, beautiful way.
Now, I better go. If I don’t cosplay this character immediately I’m pretty sure all my friends will riot.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
sorry i just read your sig after seeing your profile pic ... being the caretaker of numerous daschunds... i had to laugh... a lot.
I'm trying to figure out how/when to see it again. It's the kind of movie where you can dig a lot deeper on the second go, because the first time you're too busy being floored.
See this movie. It's OTT...I love road warrior...first ten minutes I wasn't sure what to think.
It was amazing I keep trying to get people to watch it. It wasn't perfect...but man was it good.
So utterly awesome.
I'm going again now.
Haven't done that for years!!
Everyone has commented ont he Feminist angle, but I am surprised about how political this movie is.
I mean, the main bad guy is a strong advocate for literal trickle down economics. That's just the start of the political deconstruction you could go into. This could be interpreted as a very liberal movie.
That's the great thing about post-apoc movies. Done right, they allow us to hold up a twisted mirror to our own world and culture.
Edit: I hope Ridley Scott and George Romero were taking notes on this flick.
Easy E wrote: Everyone has commented ont he Feminist angle, but I am surprised about how political this movie is.
I mean, the main bad guy is a strong advocate for literal trickle down economics. That's just the start of the political deconstruction you could go into. This could be interpreted as a very liberal movie.
That's the great thing about post-apoc movies. Done right, they allow us to hold up a twisted mirror to our own world and culture.
Well... George Miller is a proud flaming lefty...
In fact, most of his movies are like that.
<shrugs>
Doesn't matter to me, as he's fantastic writer/director. Especially for his love of practical effects. He's re-setting the bar....
The Thunderdome™ and the flame-throwing-guitar scene is f'n metal!
We both thought it was amazing and think it is going to be regarded as a classic.
Theron was absolutely phenomenal as Furiosa, totally badass and also incredibly real. There's nothing she does where you have to suspend your disbelief to think that she could actually do that. She was the star of it for us.
I walked in to Fury Road wondering why they haven't made another Mad Max for the last 30 years. I walked out wondering why we bothered making anything but Mad Max movies for the last 30 years. This film is simple, pure action movie gold.
Obviously the stunt work is the core of the film, and its not only done perfectly, but with great imagination. And of course, there's a hell of a lot of it. I didn't count, but maybe 2/3 of this film is people crashing cars in to other cars, shooting cars from other cars, or flying off exploding cars. Great stuff.
The script is simple and sparse, and lets action and spectacle do all the work. But at the same it never lets the action get meaningless - each action scene is moving the script forward.
And the world building was perfect. A handful of lines and some great visuals were enough to set the scene and let our imaginations make up the rest if we wanted.
And it had Quentin, and Megan Gale got run over by a truck.
The film wasn't without problems, of course. The politics was vague enough that it could have been ignored, but it was so unsubtle that was hard. Probably the bigger problem was that the last action scene was the well made, and the ending after that was perfunctory - what should have been a relief after all that carnage felt flat. But those are nitpicks. This was a fething great movie.
That's a great review and a strength to the film I didn't realise at all. Thanks for posting that, Manchu.
whembly wrote: Well... George Miller is a proud flaming lefty...
In fact, most of his movies are like that.
<shrugs>
Doesn't matter to me, as he's fantastic writer/director. Especially for his love of practical effects. He's re-setting the bar....
Yeah, there's an old guard in Australian film that's are basically socialists. It was interesting to see the veteran actor John Howard show up as one of the big villains in this movie, he's another one with political views very similar to Miller. I mean, they're probably mates. Miller seems to employ the same group of friends in all his movies - it was interesting to spot actors in this who'd showed up in a bunch of Miller's other movies, including earlier Mad Max movies.
But as you rightly say, when the film is made really well, none of that matters at all.
That's a great review and a strength to the film I didn't realise at all. Thanks for posting that, Manchu.
It came to me courtesy of judgedoug. I also didn't think very hard about Furiosa's disability while watching the movie. Even something as, in hindsight, obvious as this
Watch Furiosa fire a long shot, using Max’s shoulder to stabilize the gun barrel, as an alternative to using two hands!
just flew past me, at least as a matter of her only having one hand.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
sorry i just read your sig after seeing your profile pic ... being the caretaker of numerous daschunds... i had to laugh... a lot.
Slight digression, are there any sites or magazines where I can immerse myself in more of this post-apocalyptic culture? Style, clothing, gear, cars, setting, events, fiction, etc.? Simply as entertainment of course.
Well to be fair I saw that happening a mile away when "It only has 4 shots" line showed up.
I know alot of people like this, but at first I didnt.
Why?
The first 30 minutes are pretty much action with no meaning.
We barely know furiosa, to the attack on the convoy is meaningless. as is madmax being strapped to the hood of a car(Why did he need to be a blood bank again?)
After that it got better, with the action having stakes, people actually dying.
It was ok at best, action was good, but a 3rd of it had no consequences.
Mad Max: Fury Road is a filmic fever dream of high-octane action perfection. From start to finish, it’s thrilling, it’s funny, it’s gorgeous, and it’s wonderfully weird, and despite an incredible dearth of dialogue, it’s actually quite moving in places, too. Where other movies would develop character and build worlds and move the plot forward with pages upon pages of expository dialogue, this one does all of the above with just a handful of words, some incredible visuals, and a whole lot of facial expressions. Basically, Fury Road is a masterpiece of minimalistic storytelling, and the most satisfying movie I’ve seen in years.
And if it’s successful enough, God willing, it’s going to get a sequel called Mad Max: The Wasteland.
Co-writer/director George Miller was recently on The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith (via The Playlist) podcast, where he talked about Fury Road and its potential sequels. Here’s what he had to say:
We’ve got one screenplay [for the second film] and a novella [for the third]. It happened because with the delays [on 'Fury Road'], and writing all the backstories, they just expanded. [The second one] is called ‘The Wasteland.’ ‘Mad Max: The Wasteland.’
The fact that George Miller has already begun developing sequels to Fury Road isn’t really news. Indeed, we’ve known that was the case going back to 2010, when Miller said that two sequels were in the works – as a result of creating backstories for the characters in Fury Road – and that the second one would be titled ‘Furiosa’ after Charlize Theron’s character.
ADVERTISING
Mad Max Fury Road Sequel Titled The Wasteland
So the news here, then, is that the next film is (apparently) no longer titled Mad Max: Furiosa, but will instead be titled Mad Max: The Wasteland. Whether or not that means it’s an altogether new idea/film or the same idea/film with a new title is unclear, though one presumes there’s some connection. After all, Miller’s been a bit too busy making Fury Road to craft an all-new script for a follow-up.
I’m sort of torn on what I want to see in a sequel. On the one hand, I loved Furiosa – and Charlize Theron’s performance – and would love to see that character return to the big screen. Furthermore, there’s something really enjoyable about Theron and Tom Hardy’s chemistry onscreen together (I’m not talking about romantic chemistry) that I’d love to see explored further.
On the other hand, no Mad Max film has ever seen Max cross paths with characters from a previous film, and I kind of like how the character just gets caught up in different people’s stories from time to time. It adds to his power as a mythological figure in the apocalyptic world that George Miller has created. Having him essentially return to – and extend – the story of Fury Road seems a little too conventional for these films. But whatever – at this point, Miller has earned the right to make whatever kind of Mad Max movie he wants.
The only question now is: Will Fury Road make enough money to warrant a sequel? An opening weekend box office haul of $45 million domestic (and $109 million worldwide) for an R-rated sequel to a 40-year-old franchise is impressive, no doubt about it. But Fury Road was a not a cheap film. Its reported production budget is $150 million, and with reshoots and the time it took to get to theaters, I wouldn’t be surprised if that number is closer to $200 million.
Hopefully, universal critical acclaim and excellent word-of-mouth will give the film some staying power. But hell, even if we never see a sequel, at least we got – legitimately – one of the greatest genre movies ever made out of the deal.
Ehhn, Ithink felt the same as a pg13 to me. It seemed like it didn't warrant an R.
also, funny note. Supplemental material names the leader of the bullet farm. His former name was major kalisnikov. And he was a subordinate to immortan Joe during the oil wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, joes car, the giant one in the end fight.
Those are two coup DE villas 1959s on tbere. It made me sad because those where two fused together. Such a waste of a caddy.
hotsauceman1 wrote: We barely know furiosa, to the attack on the convoy is meaningless. as is madmax being strapped to the hood of a car(Why did he need to be a blood bank again?)
.
Max had to be a blood bank because the War-boyz are all dying from radiation poisoning and the only thing that allows them to keep going is frequent blood transfusions.
Also, the first 30 minutes we know that Furiosa was a trusted LT to Immortan Joe, and she decided to go rogue. Therefore, the stakes/suspense is finding out why she is going rogue in the first place, AND how will Max get out of being imprisoned by the War-boyz.
Saw it with the GF and I wasn't impressed and to be honest I'm downright shocked at the reviews it is getting. It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks. Far too ridiculous of a spectacle to ever be taken remotely seriously. As a pure popcorn action flick it's great, but as anything else...I just don't get the hype.
hotsauceman1 wrote: We barely know furiosa, to the attack on the convoy is meaningless. as is madmax being strapped to the hood of a car(Why did he need to be a blood bank again?)
.
Max had to be a blood bank because the War-boyz are all dying from radiation poisoning and the only thing that allows them to keep going is frequent blood transfusions.
Also, the first 30 minutes we know that Furiosa was a trusted LT to Immortan Joe, and she decided to go rogue. Therefore, the stakes/suspense is finding out why she is going rogue in the first place, AND how will Max get out of being imprisoned by the War-boyz.
But we already figured out why she went rogue, to save the wives
trexmeyer wrote: It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks.
Don't you mean "borrowed heavily from The Road Warrior"? Because all three Mad Max originals predate the modern " look" of 40K Orks by at least two decades.
Honestly one of the best films I've ever seen, loved every second of it.
Also, I now really wish GW still did Gorka Morka, I have got an itch only a mob of orks in crazy buggies, bike and a massive truck plus another truck with a Goff Rokker on it can scratch.
Just skipped school to see it today, and I thought it was an excellent rendition of the Mad Max world, as well as a pretty though provoking film overall.
trexmeyer wrote: Saw it with the GF and I wasn't impressed and to be honest I'm downright shocked at the reviews it is getting. It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks. Far too ridiculous of a spectacle to ever be taken remotely seriously. As a pure popcorn action flick it's great, but as anything else...I just don't get the hype.
trexmeyer wrote: Saw it with the GF and I wasn't impressed and to be honest I'm downright shocked at the reviews it is getting. It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks. Far too ridiculous of a spectacle to ever be taken remotely seriously. As a pure popcorn action flick it's great, but as anything else...I just don't get the hype.
trexmeyer wrote: Saw it with the GF and I wasn't impressed and to be honest I'm downright shocked at the reviews it is getting. It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks. Far too ridiculous of a spectacle to ever be taken remotely seriously. As a pure popcorn action flick it's great, but as anything else...I just don't get the hype.
Have you seen the original movies at all?
Yes and Thunderdome is better imo.
I had originally misjudged your sentiment and was about to say something along the lines of "Kids these days....".
But you actually have a point. I quite liked Thunderdome. It had some plot to it, in addition to action. And the Thunderdome cage fight of course was a precedent. Who can forget "Two men enter....".
trexmeyer wrote:Saw it with the GF and I wasn't impressed and to be honest I'm downright shocked at the reviews it is getting. It's really just an OTT action movie that looks like it borrowed heavily from Warhammer 40K Orks. Far too ridiculous of a spectacle to ever be taken remotely seriously. As a pure popcorn action flick it's great, but as anything else...I just don't get the hype.
Funny you should say that, I would hazard a guess that elements of Mad Max probably played a big influence in the whole 'Kult of Speed' thing that came along for Orks at the end of 1st edition. In fact, I'd say it's a certainty.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Y,know. Is it bad to say, this movie seemed like a mild pg13?
I mean, what did it have that warranted an R that avengers didnt?
People being shot in the face.
People having their faces ripped off.
Not being comic-book violence.
That's three!
Thought the film was pretty raw, the last word I would ever use to describe it is 'mild' !
Manchu wrote: Nah, I don't think so. I wrote a post all about it a few pages back.
Ok, cool. I shouldnt have to read a post to understand her motivation. Mad Max was simple. To run from his deamons, and maybe atone by helping the wives.
Manchu wrote: Nah, I don't think so. I wrote a post all about it a few pages back.
Ok, cool. I shouldnt have to read a post to understand her motivation. Mad Max was simple. To run from his deamons, and maybe atone by helping the wives.
The thing is, not everyone does have to read a post to get it. Just because you do...
Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean Nux was the best Char in the movie
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean Nux was the best Char in the movie
Nux was the only actual character in the movie really. But he died.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean Nux was the best Char in the movie
Nux was the only actual character in the movie really. But he died.
Was Nux the Warboy? I don't think I ever caught his name.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never did figure her motive. Which was" Take them to my home" and stuff like that.
I can never tell if you are being sarcastic.
Hotsauce, please go see Ex Machina and tell me what you think.
no, I could not figure out her motive. The whole barren thing is just speculation.
Why did she work for Joe that long?
the action is great. But the character.
Also, why should I got see ex machina?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean Nux was the best Char in the movie
Nux was the only actual character in the movie really. But he died.
Was Nux the Warboy? I don't think I ever caught his name.
I had to google his name but yea its the warboy turned good.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Altogether there were only, like, five minutes of dialogue, and two of those minutes center around her motivation. Sometimes I worry about you.
It's pretty clear that she did a lot of raiding and kidnapping on her way up to becoming an Imperator. She was kidnapped her self, along with her mother, who was clearly fertile. Can you piece the rest together or do you want me to continue?
This movie is very big on giving you enough to know what's going on without having two people talk out every plot point. That's one reason why it's so innovative; Fury Road trusts the audience. Sometimes that trust is misplaced, I guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for how she got into the vault--it doesn't matter. That is truly unimportant to the story. It's like asking about how The Man With No Name ended up in the desert on a horse with no name.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never did figure her motive. Which was" Take them to my home" and stuff like that.
I can never tell if you are being sarcastic.
Hotsauce, please go see Ex Machina and tell me what you think.
no, I could not figure out her motive. The whole barren thing is just speculation.
Why did she work for Joe that long?
the action is great. But the character.
Also, why should I got see ex machina?
She worked for Joe that long because she was working on a plan to get the wives out. Plus, being an Imperator for Joe is probably a pretty cooshy job as in that world. I mean, that seems like something you could just assume.
Nux had some great character development and the actor really surprised me. I wouldn't say he is the only character in the movie though. There were a lot of good characters, he just had the best/most development.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I never did figure her motive. Which was" Take them to my home" and stuff like that.
I can never tell if you are being sarcastic.
Hotsauce, please go see Ex Machina and tell me what you think.
no, I could not figure out her motive. The whole barren thing is just speculation.
Why did she work for Joe that long?
the action is great. But the character.
Also, why should I got see ex machina?
Redemption.
If you think Furiosa's motivation was opaque, Ex Machina will really get under your skin.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Altogether there were only, like, five minutes of dialogue, and two of those minutes center around her motivation. Sometimes I worry about you.
Worry about me? Isnt that kinda Film Snobbery and an insult.
Let me put it this was, Furiosa is a cool character. She just isnt a good one. Her motivation seemed to be the protect the girls who we have no idea how she knew where there(I could tell that no one knew about the wives)
It is full of plot holes IMO
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Altogether there were only, like, five minutes of dialogue, and two of those minutes center around her motivation. Sometimes I worry about you.
Worry about me? Isnt that kinda Film Snobbery and an insult.
Let me put it this was, Furiosa is a cool character. She just isnt a good one. Her motivation seemed to be the protect the girls who we have no idea how she knew where there(I could tell that no one knew about the wives)
It is full of plot holes IMO
I wouldn't say it was film snobbery. You just seem awfully sure that nothing escaped your notice despite everyone else telling you that it did. A lot of information was conveyed nonverbally, through implication or indirectly. While I'm not going to Be Afraid that you're 'on the spectrum', I am surprised that you failed to notice it. In sociological matters, you often display a lot of insight, so I am confused when you seem reluctant to admit there might be another angle to a subject.
Those are not plot holes. She knew Joe had his wives because her mother, and maybe even Furiosa's herself, was kidnapped by Joe to be part of his harem. She was in a highly trusted position, probably kidnapping other young women if opportunity arose. She knew the score more than the war boys or peasants.
She outright states she is seeking redemption, that survival alone is not enough.
While I thought it was all pretty bland, she clearly felt she needed redemption for likely aiding the bad guy. She wanted to flee so she thought she might take some of the victims with her and go back to the land of her dreams.
While I thought it was all pretty bland, she clearly felt she needed redemption for likely aiding the bad guy. She wanted to flee so she thought she might take some of the victims with her and go back to the land of her dreams.
I can respect that. I think it's less the content that is revolutionary than the way it's delivered. I still wouldn't consider the characters or themes bland, but discovering them on Fury Road's terms was the real attraction.
In comparison, Ex Machina has more complexity in many ways, but it relies almost entirely on old storytelling formulas, and every scene comes across as a conversation between two screenwriters telling you what the film is about through a metaphorical game of $20,000 Pyramid.
I saw it last night and thought it was damn fine. It looked great, the action was immense, it made me giggle in places, it was pretty damn metal and I thought the subtlety of some of the acting (Hardy in particular) was a bit odd but also in hindsight understandable as Max is clearly a mental loner who simply gets caught up in gak.
Regarding motivations etc, here's my take. Both Max and Furiosa want to save people for different reasons, both kind of selfish. Max because he couldn't save all the people closest to him (the guilt haunting him and driving him insane) and Furiosa, even after all the gak she clearly did/went through to get to the title/position of 'Imperator', still clung to the memory of her childhood/mother and being taken away, held and god knows what against her initial will. I presumed the rank of Imperator was high, like Joe's most trusted Lieutenants, so she obviously would have had interaction with the wives and who wouldn't want to get away from being Joe's hoe
I think Furiosa saw the chance to gain redemption by defying Joe (perhaps in doing so purging all the bad things she clearly did for him/herself) and taking with her not only those that wanted to be saved from him (although one wife clearly had second thoughts during the journey) but also taking away his most prized possessions. She could have just left on her own, or possibly even killed Joe, his wives or even herself, but it clearly wouldn't have been a statement enough for her. I think she wanted to wound Joe badly and make him suffer as much as possible and not simply just leaving for some promised land - the image of which she clung to strongly and when it was taken away from her she had a bit of a 'Noooooooooo' moment. It was clear that the 'Green Place' was her final hope and possibly her final link to her humanity and, being a world without hope, was taken away - until Max re-instilled hope being the hero that he is.
I was surprised by the amount of emotion in it tbh, hell even Joe felt grief and concern for his wives/children, his aim clearly aimed at breeding a 'pure/perfect' human being to supposedly carry on his blood-line and in so doing expanding the mythology he had instilled into his little empire.
Like most films there's a lot that can be interpreted/extrapolated from it and I think the delivery in this film was spot-on - if it had a message to it (and I'm not saying it does in particular) it wasn't thrown in your face with long dialogue, or worse, a monologue. You don't have to think about it as it's a great popcorn flick and you can happily leave it at that, but if you do think about it you could pick far worse films to debate.
Nux had the fullest character arc in the film by far and I think his own story outshone both Max's and Furiosa's, which is a bit odd as as they were the main protagonists, which kind of made their own stories weaker IMHO.
But damn, those vehicles were awesome and I kind of hope that kits become available one day. Please, someone, anyone?
All the same I loved it and I heartily recommend it
Let's just assume there is no explicit or implicit dialog on this subject in the film. The point is nonetheless made via indirect characterization. The role of women in the Citadel is very, very clear. It happens to be probably the most important setting detail to the plot. Not only does Furiosa not have that role, her title is explicitly gendered as male. Movies can be hard to understand if you are not really paying attention. For example, you admitted that you did not understand Furiosa's motivation. As it so happens, there is a scene in the film where Max basically says "what is your motivation?" and she responds "redemption." This is not a coincidence.
She didn't have a choice. She was basically a slave who had worked her way up to being one of Joe's lieutenants. She was raised in the Citadel and obviously prospered in that environment until Splendid convinced her to betray Joe.
warspawned wrote: hell even Joe felt grief and concern for his wives/children, his aim clearly aimed at breeding a 'pure/perfect' human being to supposedly carry on his blood-line and in so doing expanding the mythology he had instilled into his little empire.
Joe is a pretty fascinating character, although it is easy to just hate him for being a tyrant. His megalomania, however, seems driven by the sincere conviction that Citadel society is the only way humanity can survive. He is totally delusional, of course. (This is the guy who paternally advises his subjects not to become addicted to water, after all.) His kingdom may be rich and powerful but the people are all deformed, sick, and/or dying. His theology has two layers. The outer layer is oriented toward the death cult of the terminally ill warboys. Warboys are effectively genetic deadends; they spend the balance of their already short lives trying to make a glorious end of it. The inner layer is oriented toward the virility cult symbolized by Joe's ritualistic monopolies on water and female fertility. Joe juxtaposes these cults so that he is the master of life and death. He is the one who will lift humanity from the ashes, he is the one who will raise the warboys to Valhalla shiny and chrome. But in truth, his subjects are impoverished mutants, his army is made up of leukemia patients, his sons are as genetically defective as the warboys, and his wives not only hate him personally but totally reject everything about his worldview. Despite all this, Joe is willing to bet everything on getting the wives back. He knows his own empire cannot survive without them and I think he is also convinced humanity has no chance unless he can sire a healthy son.
Awesome movie. What really pisses me off is the entire discussion around it. Instead of talking about the movie and its outstanding action, it seems that discussions are way too often about SJW and anti-SJW praising / hating the gender of one of the protagonists. So annoying.
Why would anyone care about the gender of any main actor if the movie delievers /exactly/ what it promised? Constant, full-front action. That's what Mad Max is about. Cars. Guns. Explosions.
Furiosa was taken as a child and later becomes part of Joe's army. Between her missing arm and/or being barren she doesn't have value as a breeder but she has obvious talents as a warrior and climbs the ranks up the driver of the wartruck which would infer she's a top ranked badass as the less skilled end up manning guns or hanging off the sides etc.
While it's not spelled out explicitly one can very reasonably project is that it means she was out there fighting and taking others prisoner, and would have been responsible for turning over other women to Joe for rape/breeding a fate that she herself has been spared. She's basically acting as the hand of Joe and helping condemn other women to their own personal hell. That would tend to build up a guilt complex and while she can't help the masses she can at least attempt to save a few from that fate.
Which also mirrors Max's own ambitions, he can't save the world as it's too far gone but he can at least make his stand with a few that aren't yet lost. They are both out to redeem themselves for the ones they failed to save before. (it also explains why Max is haunted by the visions of past at moments where he realizes his failure will result in more innocent deaths) Think of the film as a sort of post-apoc version of Schindler's List.
Sometimes you gotta pay attention to more than just what the characters are saying, the background visuals convey a lot in a very short time.
As for the R rating the violence is fairly graphic and there's a lot of savagery in play. While there's no sex scene there are boobies (which tends to earn a R-rating easier than violence nowdays).
Sigvatr wrote: Why would anyone care about the gender of any main actor if the movie delievers /exactly/ what it promised? Constant, full-front action. That's what Mad Max is about. Cars. Guns. Explosions.
Uh ... the plot is that a guy's wives escape from sex slavery.
I wasn't a big fan. It was a decent action movie with a bland script. Tom Hardy is given a few grunts for dialogue throughout the whole movie. Nicholas Hoult is very good, except that his character does a 180-degree personality turn for no apparent reason. Charlize Theron is downright iconic as Imperator Furiosa, she was great. Overall, it was just another post-apocalypse movie with decent action and bad writing. I recommend Six-String Samurai, it's more fun and memorable.
Spoiler:
The action got pretty repetitive by the end, especially since we're cheated out of the only action sequence that doesn't take place in barren desert (it takes place off-screen, in the distance).
And I really don't get the strong-woman angle. Theron is awesome, but there are literally five super-models sitting in the back of the truck the entire movie being nothing but useless. At one point, they are all sitting there and quite literally let Theron get stabbed in the back while they do nothing but scream.
TheSilo wrote: I wasn't a big fan. It was a decent action movie with a bland script. Tom Hardy is given a few grunts for dialogue throughout the whole movie. Nicholas Hoult is very good, except that his character does a 180-degree personality turn for no apparent reason. Charlize Theron is downright iconic as Imperator Furiosa, she was great. Overall, it was just another post-apocalypse movie with decent action and bad writing. I recommend Six-String Samurai, it's more fun and memorable.
I think the heel turn for Nuz was that he failed 3 times, the biggest infront of joe.
But when one of the wives showed genuine compassion, he realized joe wasnt a god anymore.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly. He finally broke down, and the redhead picked him up. Thus the 180.
Love conquers all, especially when in that situation it was essentially motherly love.
I guess it's a pretty common movie trope, still felt a little ridiculous to see in a character who was willing to die for his religious conviction change so dramatically so quickly.
I guess it's a pretty common movie trope, still felt a little ridiculous to see in a character who was willing to die for his religious conviction change so dramatically so quickly.
And yet, the same thing happens in real life. Remember we're not given the exact precise timeline in the movie, this could be happening over days or weeks, maybe even months (with the way characters talk of distance). And even in real life, when a person realizes that their religion is bull gak, the switch tends to be flipped pretty quick.
let me preface by saying, I LOVE mad max, I know remakes tend to suck,
all I wanted was a half decent story, some good cool villains and that dystopian feel...
I was very VERY let down... this movie was bad...
may as well just call it " some dudes you never heard of drive a truck and fight some other dudes you never heard of, that the story barely even explains for 2 hours. oh and this guy named max does barely anything and seems like a minor character in the movie"
seriously.... I took 3 people who never saw the originals, and they were just lost and it was basically just gore/action porn was all of our conclusions.
nothing was explained,
we dont have the really cool scenes like the barter town stuff where, oh i dont know,
people talk to each other! do some plot, dialogue, heck, even comedic bits...
they could have explored the setting a bit more, bullet farm, gas town, I was excited to see the towns and so on, but no... the entire movie is them diving a damn truck.
no memorable characters like master blaster, or the feral kid... even max is stupid in this one...
as a brainless action flick its good visually, the fights are great, the way they film the car crashes and fights is TOP NOTCH@! the costumes and production value are high, but they really missed the mark on the theme/tone/feel...
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly. He finally broke down, and the redhead picked him up. Thus the 180.
Love conquers all, especially when in that situation it was essentially motherly love.
I guess it's a pretty common movie trope, still felt a little ridiculous to see in a character who was willing to die for his religious conviction change so dramatically so quickly.
yeah its a trope, a ridiculous one... most character arcs had poor reasoning behind them... they really should have spent at least *some* time in the bad guys citadel going over daily life so at least we know where they are coming from... it really did not do a good job portraying a realistc arc for that half life guy.
so much wasted potential, really bitter taste in my mouth after this to be honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Movie explains to much people complain that it is insulting to the audience.
Movie gives the audience credit for being able to think/see and people complain that it doesn't explicitly explain enough.
I wouldnt say the movie lack explanation,
it lack *exposition* and it lacked any sort of depth that we had in the prior movies.
barter town, the crashed plane tribe, that pilot dude and his son, and many other things from the originals that actually suspended my disbelief and added depth just had no equivelent in this movie. It was straight up just an action/gore porn flick.. and almost all the action was repetitive driving based stuff which got old after two hours of it.
it lack *exposition* and it lacked any sort of depth that we had in the prior movies.
I definitely disagree with you here.... I think that this movie excellently explained what needed explaining, with as few words as possible.
If you can't fill in the rest, that doesn't mean the movie is bad or terribly done.
Plus, since we didn't see the Bullet Farm, or Gastown, and it's not overtly explained how the three became "business partners", this leaves plenty of opportunity for follow-on films within the MM world.
it lack *exposition* and it lacked any sort of depth that we had in the prior movies.
I definitely disagree with you here.... I think that this movie excellently explained what needed explaining, with as few words as possible.
If you can't fill in the rest, that doesn't mean the movie is bad or terribly done.
Plus, since we didn't see the Bullet Farm, or Gastown, and it's not overtly explained how the three became "business partners", this leaves plenty of opportunity for follow-on films within the MM world.
you are not reading what I wrote,
it didnt lack *explanation* it lacked *exposition* and depth..
I dont need it to explain what is happening, because its pretty self evident that the only thing happening is a bunch of car chase and action scenes..
thats the point, mad max has more to it then just car chase action scenes, which I do enjoy, but that wasnt 100% of the movies originally, they had other elements to them.
in fury road we get no exposition of the world, and the movie is 100% action oriented instead of exploring the world/theme/ect
the moments we had in thunder dome, or when entering barter town, or master blaster, the crashed plane tribe, or any of the memorable things from the other MM moves just isnt there, there is no personality to it, its just a brainless action flick riding the coat tails of the MM name
it wasnt even thought out well, the original mad max really gives you the feeling that this is *the end* things are really really bad... humungoid the most powerful warlord has like 5 shots left for his magnum pistol. everyones using bows+arrows and reusable weapons, his 1st officer was awesome too... the little details like him losing his lover and freaking out, the side characters like the guy who tried to catch the feral kids boomerang... those things add *DEPTH* and fit into the setting/theme.
fury road everyone is shooting so many rounds the apocalypse may as well have never happened, they seem to have infinite explosives too, they have so much stuff to shoot, so much fuel, cars, food, water, that its like, wtf? did the world even end?
hotsauceman1 wrote: The first 30 minutes are pretty much action with no meaning.
In the first minute of Mad Max we seem him suffer PTS, get captured and almost escape - that's enough story for the first hour of most movies. The next ten minutes sets out Immortan Joe's empire, and it's trading set up with the other two empires. Then we get Furiosa's attempted escape, and shows how she gets rid of her escorts, the beliefs of the War Boys, and Max's escape - all told through the simple narrative technique of exploding cars.
We barely know furiosa, to the attack on the convoy is meaningless. as is madmax being strapped to the hood of a car(Why did he need to be a blood bank again?)
After that it got better, with the action having stakes, people actually dying.
Yeah, this kind of thinking is pretty much the plague of modern films - this idea that every piece of detail needs to explained in complete detail with no further questions possible. They're obviously sick, and the blood helps. So they take blood from captives. That's enough.
Wow, you are genuinely the first person I've met who admitted to liking Thunderdome (apart from one guy who it turned out hadn't seen any of the films for about a decade).
Thunderdome has a great start and some excellent setting elements. But the last act is just fething terrible, and so far removed from the rest of the Mad Max series that, well, they didn't make another for 30 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
I really have no idea why you think it's necessary to have a scene to show that a person finds sexual slavery wrong, and might act against it.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Yeah, that's more of that 'plague of modern movies' thing I mentioned above. We don't need to have absolutely every goddamn thing explained. Pacing and focus matter way more than explaining detail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: This movie is very big on giving you enough to know what's going on without having two people talk out every plot point. That's one reason why it's so innovative; Fury Road trusts the audience. Sometimes that trust is misplaced, I guess.
Yes, this perfectly sums it up. Well said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: She worked for Joe that long because she was working on a plan to get the wives out. Plus, being an Imperator for Joe is probably a pretty cooshy job as in that world. I mean, that seems like something you could just assume.
Personally, I assumed that given she was taken young (and her mother quickly died), she would have been raised in that society. She would have taken on its values and acted according to them, raiding and pillaging like those around her. It generally takes time and maturity to realise how messed up the society around you might be. Hence her need for redemption.
But that’s only one explanation, the couple you give work just as well, and there’s probably plenty of others. It is, as you say, something the audience can just assume – and come up with their own background explanation if they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheSilo wrote: I wasn't a big fan. It was a decent action movie with a bland script. Tom Hardy is given a few grunts for dialogue throughout the whole movie. Nicholas Hoult is very good, except that his character does a 180-degree personality turn for no apparent reason. Charlize Theron is downright iconic as Imperator Furiosa, she was great. Overall, it was just another post-apocalypse movie with decent action and bad writing.
The script is anything but bland, and the writing is a million miles from bad. I think a lot of people confuse jokes and speeches with writing.
The harem girls don't fight, and so in combat terms they are useless. But that's not the same thing as being bad or ineffectual characters.
But I do agree that the action scenes get a little repetitive, and this is made worse because the last sequence is the least impressive fight out of all of them.
I recommend Six-String Samurai, it's more fun and memorable.
Please don't do that. People will believe you, and they don't deserve that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheSilo wrote: I guess it's a pretty common movie trope, still felt a little ridiculous to see in a character who was willing to die for his religious conviction change so dramatically so quickly.
It's the bend or break thing you see in extremist ideologies - failing their society and being automatically outcast, they go looking for approval and acceptance in another. You see this with Japanese POWs in WWII, extreme beliefs made it hard to capture Japanese soldiers, but those that were taken were extremely talkative - much more so than the prisoners of other countries (crappy Japanese operational security helped as well).
The time frame is massively exaggerated, I mean we're basically talking one intimate conversation with a girl, but other than that it wasn't too unbelievable.
they did car action stuff very well, its just thats basically all it was...
which is ok for 80 minutes, but it was 2 hours long ffs.
At that length there needs to be a little bit of tempo change, it cant all be action, no matter how good the action is, especially when its a specific type of action.
The repetitiveness of it just left me wanting it to end at the end
Watched Thunderdome last night, now that was a cool film. The cars and story in that were awesome. I think it shows its age a bit with the silly humour in some parts but aside from that it was pretty awesome.
I think the fact that Barter Town wasn't an awful sickly and cruel place but instead a bit more of a "normal" post apoc settlement with the crazy turned up a bit made the whole movie that much better. In Mad max we get the typical "everytink bad, nutink good" scenario that doesn't really make sense (to me).
Cars in thunderdome were awesome too. How I always imagined Apocalyptic cars.
Thunderdome could easily have done away with some of the silly humour (the indiana jones style bad guy who doesn't die is the worst offender in that film) but I think the Thunderdome explores more post apocalyptic ideas than Fury Road does, which is Frankly just a car chase movie and not much more.
Fury road was definitely better than the Original Mad max though.
easysauce wrote: they did car action stuff very well, its just thats basically all it was...
which is ok for 80 minutes, but it was 2 hours long ffs.
At that length there needs to be a little bit of tempo change, it cant all be action, no matter how good the action is, especially when its a specific type of action.
The repetitiveness of it just left me wanting it to end at the end
There were tempo shifts, and I think they were long enough, and the time was well spent expanding the story and setting. Honestly, if people think there wasn't enough story in this film then I just don't know what to say. It wasn't laid on with never-ending gobbledigook explanations, but it shouldn't be, and it didn't used to be.
I kind of wonder what would happen if something like Die Hard was released today. Or the original Conan the Barbarian?
That said, I do agree with the complaint about repetitiveness. It wasn't enough to ruin the movie for me, but it was certainly there. But I don't think the issue was with the amount of action, but the similarity between all the action scenes. Max and Furiosa's fight was the only action scene that wasn't the war rig being chased by a bunch of vehicles, and by the final action scene, we'd seen all that already.
it didnt lack *explanation* it lacked *exposition* and depth..
I dont need it to explain what is happening, because its pretty self evident that the only thing happening is a bunch of car chase and action scenes..
thats the point, mad max has more to it then just car chase action scenes, which I do enjoy, but that wasnt 100% of the movies originally, they had other elements to them.
in fury road we get no exposition of the world, and the movie is 100% action oriented instead of exploring the world/theme/ect
umm... explanation is a synonym for exposition. Ever write an expository essay in school? You're attempting to explain some gak in it.
Again, I think the writers of this movie were able to explain perfectly in 30 seconds of dialogue, or single phrases of dialogue, what some movies have trouble doing with a 5 minute monologue.
Just because the players in the movie weren't holding up signs reading out what's going on in the background, doesn't mean it wasn't there.
And unless you missed the very opening credit sequence, they most definitely do explain how the world has gone to gak in a handbasket...
Spoiler:
hint, it happens in the sequence right before max is captured
easysauce wrote: they did car action stuff very well, its just thats basically all it was...
which is ok for 80 minutes, but it was 2 hours long ffs.
At that length there needs to be a little bit of tempo change, it cant all be action, no matter how good the action is, especially when its a specific type of action.
The repetitiveness of it just left me wanting it to end at the end
There were tempo shifts, and I think they were long enough, and the time was well spent expanding the story and setting. Honestly, if people think there wasn't enough story in this film then I just don't know what to say. It wasn't laid on with never-ending gobbledigook explanations, but it shouldn't be, and it didn't used to be.
I kind of wonder what would happen if something like Die Hard was released today. Or the original Conan the Barbarian?
That said, I do agree with the complaint about repetitiveness. It wasn't enough to ruin the movie for me, but it was certainly there. But I don't think the issue was with the amount of action, but the similarity between all the action scenes. Max and Furiosa's fight was the only action scene that wasn't the war rig being chased by a bunch of vehicles, and by the final action scene, we'd seen all that already.
I dunno, I thought the chase scene in to the large sand storm was pretty unique and a nice tempo change. As well as when they get to the part where they pretty much got away, but then got stuck in a bog and the tank vehicle was after them. Max then went and did some pretty shady stuff while they were working on it.
There were plenty of slow spots in the movie. It just had a lot of action, people tend to forget about them.
Dreadwinter wrote: I dunno, I thought the chase scene in to the large sand storm was pretty unique and a nice tempo change. As well as when they get to the part where they pretty much got away, but then got stuck in a bog and the tank vehicle was after them. Max then went and did some pretty shady stuff while they were working on it.
The car sequence in the storm was different, but it was still a car sequence. I'm not complaining about there being lots of car sequences (it's a Mad Max movie afterall), I'm just pointing out it could possibly have benefited from one of the big sequences being a different kind of action scene. It might have meant that the last sequence back through the canyon would have been a lot more exciting.
There were plenty of slow spots in the movie. It just had a lot of action, people tend to forget about them.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or easysause, here's my comment;
"There were tempo shifts, and I think they were long enough, and the time was well spent expanding the story and setting."
I'd echo the view that enough is explained through visuals, looks between characters and what dialogue there is. Anything else... well you can fill in the blanks with that little thing called imagination.
At the end of the day, this is just one way of making a film and for me, it was just really refreshing to see everything done for real instead of CGI (sand storm excepted, but that's an example of how a little CGI goes a long way).
For those disappointed, I honestly don't know what you were expecting from the film. It's Mad Max done how Mad Max should be done. And as others have highlighted, there are definitely changes in the pace. I remember the slow bits all too well, because I was getting impatient at the lack of action.
George Miller got the balance absolutely spot on IMHO, but the thing with balance is that not everyone will see things the same way. Some will want a bit more of action, while others will want the characters to sit down in a room and spend ten minutes talking about why they need to chase each other around the desert in cars.
I definitely do not think Thunderdome was better..however, I do feel that this movie was, in general, a repeat of the Road Warrior gas tanker set piece. That was very innovative back in the 80's no one had done anything like that before (that I recall). That was kind of one of the coolest things about road warrior, the tanker chase/battle, and it was the climax of the film.
In Fury Road it was just about the whole thematic element of the movie.. attack the tanker truck....rinse and repeat.
And I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the movie, because I definitely did!
I really liked the Citadel...Wanted to see more of it! Really liked the War Wagon..and the guitar guy. Just about all of the side elements were cool, just wanted to see more of it!! This would have been better if it had more side story...IMO.
I would have liked to have seen an assault on bullet town, or gas town, or on the citadel...But what we got was one big repeat of the gas tanker set piece from Road Warrior.
Hopefully the next movies will have more story...to balance things out.
generalgrog wrote: I definitely do not think Thunderdome was better..however, I do feel that this movie was, in general, a repeat of the Road Warrior gas tanker set piece. That was very innovative back in the 80's no one had done anything like that before (that I recall). That was kind of one of the coolest things about road warrior, the tanker chase/battle, and it was the climax of the film.
In Fury Road it was just about the whole thematic element of the movie.. attack the tanker truck....rinse and repeat.
And I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the movie, because I definitely did!
I really liked the Citadel...Wanted to see more of it! Really liked the War Wagon..and the guitar guy. Just about all of the side elements were cool, just wanted to see more of it!! This would have been better if it had more side story...IMO.
I would have liked to have seen an assault on bullet town, or gas town, or on the citadel...But what we got was one big repeat of the gas tanker set piece from Road Warrior.
Hopefully the next movies will have more story...to balance things out.
GG
Yeah that mirrors my feelings as well,
I wanted more exposition of the OTHER things going on BESIDES the crazy chase the truck scenes that took up 90% of the movie, some scenes that explore the citadel, or flesh out immortom joes character (you dont need people talking about what they are about to do for 10 minutes... but like, a harem scene or something to simply establish that joe has a harem, or *something* to flesh him out a bit is nice.)
there was just a lot more to the story that should have got some visual story telling done to it, not just the car chase stuff, lots of things besides the car chase stuff is interesting in the mad max world, and it could have been explored more is all.
I do hope there is another film or two, I think it has a lot of potential, even as a action flick fury road is a really GOOD action flick at least...
the total lack of CGI, and the really well done stunts combined with brilliant camera work deserve praise.
easysauce wrote: a harem scene or something to simply establish that joe has a harem, or *something* to flesh him out a bit is nice.
Did you not notice the women and milking machines? Or the conversation in the war rig stating the girls were from the harem? You already have both background visuals and people stating there's a harem, do you need a giant flashing neon sign saying Joe's rape lair here <---?
easysauce wrote: a harem scene or something to simply establish that joe has a harem, or *something* to flesh him out a bit is nice.
Did you not notice the women and milking machines? Or the conversation in the war rig stating the girls were from the harem? You already have both background visuals and people stating there's a harem, do you need a giant flashing neon sign saying Joe's rape lair here <---?
Pfft, this is Mad Max. Any such sign would be shiny and chrome.
easysauce wrote: a harem scene or something to simply establish that joe has a harem, or *something* to flesh him out a bit is nice.
Did you not notice the women and milking machines? Or the conversation in the war rig stating the girls were from the harem? You already have both background visuals and people stating there's a harem, do you need a giant flashing neon sign saying Joe's rape lair here <---?
lets try to keep the veiled "you are stupid for not seeing things as I do" type comments out of it shall we?
yes, I saw women being used like cattle for milk... Im not saying there were NO SCENES like this, im stating there was far too few scenes that explore the world/story in proportion to the huge amount of scenes that explore things like explosions and chases.
There was not enough scenes to establish the setting, let alone characters... when there are not enough scenes or something to establish proper setting/characters, it just makes the movie lack depth.
almost all of the setting/max's character is set from the other movies, the music box reference just gets shoved into FR with no explanation and just doesn't fit compared the non working shot shell one works better in that it fits into the scene.
generalgrog wrote: I definitely do not think Thunderdome was better..however
Am I alone in thinking Thunderdome wasn't a very good movie? The setting details and much of the film were great, but once the kids go back to Bartertown... well it's worse than the damn Ewoks at the end of Jedi.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Nahh, From what I hear, each is stand alone. Not going to continue a story.
Which is awesome, because that's kind of the Mad Max thing - he blows in to town, plays his part in whatever post-apocalyptic struggle is taking place, and then moves on to the next.
generalgrog wrote: I definitely do not think Thunderdome was better..however
Am I alone in thinking Thunderdome wasn't a very good movie? The setting details and much of the film were great, but once the kids go back to Bartertown... well it's worse than the damn Ewoks at the end of Jedi.
.
nah that sums it up pretty good, awesome movie, love the tribe of the crashed plane, love how they go through the tribes culture with the records and so on.
then it turns into little kids beating the big bad deathworld barter town dudes very much like ewoks vs imperials
Flashman wrote: For those disappointed, I honestly don't know what you were expecting from the film. It's Mad Max done how Mad Max should be done. And as others have highlighted, there are definitely changes in the pace. I remember the slow bits all too well, because I was getting impatient at the lack of action.
Based on the reviews, I thought it was going to be the best movie ever made. It has an 89 on Metacritic, that puts it in the Top-200 movies of all time. Reviewers talk about it like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, not just another run of the mill action movie.
Saw it this weekend. One of the best movies I've seen in years. Saw it in AVX D-Box where the seat movies with the momentum of the car and you can feel the crashes. It added to the awesomeness.
I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
Dreadwinter wrote: I dunno, I thought the chase scene in to the large sand storm was pretty unique and a nice tempo change. As well as when they get to the part where they pretty much got away, but then got stuck in a bog and the tank vehicle was after them. Max then went and did some pretty shady stuff while they were working on it.
The car sequence in the storm was different, but it was still a car sequence. I'm not complaining about there being lots of car sequences (it's a Mad Max movie afterall), I'm just pointing out it could possibly have benefited from one of the big sequences being a different kind of action scene. It might have meant that the last sequence back through the canyon would have been a lot more exciting.
There were plenty of slow spots in the movie. It just had a lot of action, people tend to forget about them.
I'm not sure if you're talking to me or easysause, here's my comment;
"There were tempo shifts, and I think they were long enough, and the time was well spent expanding the story and setting."
As someone who has been in a tornado that scene was...surreal.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
When you watched Star Wars did you need a whole time line established in the movie? Did you need to see actual shipyards or have their whole R&D programs covering creation of fighters and star destroyers, or rather do you roll with what the universe presents and accept that there are resources in place to make such things? I can't recall one discussion about who designs or makes the x-wings in any of those movies, they are just there in the hangers so we assume somebody somewhere makes it. In the spaghetti westerns we don't need an long explanation about how the no name drifter managed to get a horse or his guns or who built the spanish mission in the middle of nowhere. Or in a fantasy movie like Hobbit how does Smaug actually get all that treasure into under mountain when he couldn't actually pick up a coin to save his life (big fumble fingers) We never see Ironman's whole logistics chain so it must be impossible for him to build his suit!
I think you're trying to nitpick at scenic elements that are largely irrelevant to the role of the characters and how they are expressed.
lets try to keep the veiled "you are stupid for not seeing things as I do" type comments out of it shall we?
yes, I saw women being used like cattle for milk... Im not saying there were NO SCENES like this, im stating there was far too few scenes that explore the world/story in proportion to the huge amount of scenes that explore things like explosions and chases.
There was not enough scenes to establish the setting, let alone characters... when there are not enough scenes or something to establish proper setting/characters, it just makes the movie lack depth.
You specifically stated that the harem wasn't addressed, when clearly it was (at least twice). So what is your criteria for establishing something strongly enough within the film? To me it seems like you are intentionally ignoring the story elements that the director purposefully inserted yet at the same time claiming there isn't enough development. So I'm pretty confused as to where you are coming from since the harem details you cited as wanting are already in the film. What further elements of detail or expansion would you need for it to feel properly included in the background?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
When you watched Star Wars did you need a whole time line established in the movie? Did you need to see actual shipyards or have their whole R&D programs covering creation of fighters and star destroyers, or rather do you roll with what the universe presents and accept that there are resources in place to make such things? I can't recall one discussion about who designs or makes the x-wings in any of those movies, they are just there in the hangers so we assume somebody somewhere makes it. In the spaghetti westerns we don't need an long explanation about how the no name drifter managed to get a horse or his guns or who built the spanish mission in the middle of nowhere. Or in a fantasy movie like Hobbit how does Smaug actually get all that treasure into under mountain when he couldn't actually pick up a coin to save his life (big fumble fingers) We never see Ironman's whole logistics chain so it must be impossible for him to build his suit!
I think you're trying to nitpick at scenic elements that are largely irrelevant to the role of the characters and how they are expressed.
Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
When you watched Star Wars did you need a whole time line established in the movie? Did you need to see actual shipyards or have their whole R&D programs covering creation of fighters and star destroyers, or rather do you roll with what the universe presents and accept that there are resources in place to make such things? I can't recall one discussion about who designs or makes the x-wings in any of those movies, they are just there in the hangers so we assume somebody somewhere makes it. In the spaghetti westerns we don't need an long explanation about how the no name drifter managed to get a horse or his guns or who built the spanish mission in the middle of nowhere. Or in a fantasy movie like Hobbit how does Smaug actually get all that treasure into under mountain when he couldn't actually pick up a coin to save his life (big fumble fingers) We never see Ironman's whole logistics chain so it must be impossible for him to build his suit!
I think you're trying to nitpick at scenic elements that are largely irrelevant to the role of the characters and how they are expressed.
Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
Here's my suggestion:
Think of it this way... how reliant on technology are we? How quickly would things go to complete gak if things in MM started happening? (as in, multiple nuclear launches, detonations, mass destruction, etc) as the beginning of the movie discusses.... people turned on each other, and the most successful at protecting themselves gained power. With that power, they further solidified that power in their own way. IMO, Joe the "boss" from Bullet farm, and the oil town each had an industrial base that they were able to coordinate and maintain some trade relations, as each had need of each other.
These older guys, Max, Joe, Bulletfarm dude, oil town dude, etc all lived in a time before the flashes, and have that knowledge of how to operate things. As such, I think that the knowledge base for things like suping up cars still exists, but it has gone from being a current knowledge to one similar to the Odyssey, where it's an "oral tradition"
hotsauceman1 wrote: Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
Pulleys and chains are hardly advanced technology, they've been around for several thousand years. It wouldn't take much to build them, the kids working the wheels is an adaptation of a treadwheel crane which dates back to roman times. There are some survivors from before the fall some of which would be mechanics and engineers and would have the skills to rebuild to a certain degree.
It's fairly obvious that they salvage whatever they can, so they probably loot parts from every junkyard and highway wreck they find. After Max is captured they do show that warboy mechanics immediately set about salvaging and repairing the interceptor and within a very short time have it fully running again as it's in the big chase. A full body restoration after being flipped and wrecked like that would not be an easy task. It's post apoc so while they've lost a lot of industry in regard to making new things, it's established that salvage and repair is very common as it's one of the few things that's keeping the survivors alive.
Also classic cars are easier to repair as there are fewer electronic parts to worry about, while they may be gas guzzlers you can fix amost any part on them with some basic tools and a welders set. Modern plastic and electronic components, not so much. Unlike the previous films nothing in fury road says this occurs in Australia, it's just a big wasteland, they also drive on the right unlike in previous films.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
When you watched Star Wars did you need a whole time line established in the movie? Did you need to see actual shipyards or have their whole R&D programs covering creation of fighters and star destroyers, or rather do you roll with what the universe presents and accept that there are resources in place to make such things? I can't recall one discussion about who designs or makes the x-wings in any of those movies, they are just there in the hangers so we assume somebody somewhere makes it. In the spaghetti westerns we don't need an long explanation about how the no name drifter managed to get a horse or his guns or who built the spanish mission in the middle of nowhere. Or in a fantasy movie like Hobbit how does Smaug actually get all that treasure into under mountain when he couldn't actually pick up a coin to save his life (big fumble fingers) We never see Ironman's whole logistics chain so it must be impossible for him to build his suit!
I think you're trying to nitpick at scenic elements that are largely irrelevant to the role of the characters and how they are expressed.
Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
Here's my suggestion:
Think of it this way... how reliant on technology are we? How quickly would things go to complete gak if things in MM started happening? (as in, multiple nuclear launches, detonations, mass destruction, etc) as the beginning of the movie discusses.... people turned on each other, and the most successful at protecting themselves gained power. With that power, they further solidified that power in their own way. IMO, Joe the "boss" from Bullet farm, and the oil town each had an industrial base that they were able to coordinate and maintain some trade relations, as each had need of each other.
These older guys, Max, Joe, Bulletfarm dude, oil town dude, etc all lived in a time before the flashes, and have that knowledge of how to operate things. As such, I think that the knowledge base for things like suping up cars still exists, but it has gone from being a current knowledge to one similar to the Odyssey, where it's an "oral tradition"
But Immortan Joe and Kalishnikov(The bullet farm guy) where said to be career generals. and they stumbled across the citadel when they where fighting the original inhabitants. it was said to be barren and nothing before that. It just makes no sense.
Also classic cars are easier to repair as there are fewer electronic parts to worry about, while they may be gas guzzlers you can fix amost any part on them with some basic tools and a welders set. Modern plastic and electronic components, not so much. Unlike the previous films nothing in fury road says this occurs in Australia, it's just a big wasteland, they also drive on the right unlike in previous films.
Nope, most cars where actually on the right hand side. Only Joes and the War Rig where different.
And it take place in Australia because I doubt mad max was able to cross the ocean in the intermission
Flashman wrote: For those disappointed, I honestly don't know what you were expecting from the film. It's Mad Max done how Mad Max should be done. And as others have highlighted, there are definitely changes in the pace. I remember the slow bits all too well, because I was getting impatient at the lack of action.
Based on the reviews, I thought it was going to be the best movie ever made. It has an 89 on Metacritic, that puts it in the Top-200 movies of all time. Reviewers talk about it like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, not just another run of the mill action movie.
It isn't a run of the mill action movie. There is a lot going on, but since it isn't communicated in traditional modes some people don't notice or just don't enjoy it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realized my problem with this movie.
All the "Stuff"
I mean, all the supped up cars. How did they get those?
How was a town able to make gasoline? How did they get oil?
How was immortan Joe able to build into the citadel, tap into the aquaferss pump it up to the top of the citadel and then build a system to drop it from his alter.
How did he get 2 caddillac coup de villes in Australia?
How did he build that entire pulley system?
Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
When you watched Star Wars did you need a whole time line established in the movie? Did you need to see actual shipyards or have their whole R&D programs covering creation of fighters and star destroyers, or rather do you roll with what the universe presents and accept that there are resources in place to make such things? I can't recall one discussion about who designs or makes the x-wings in any of those movies, they are just there in the hangers so we assume somebody somewhere makes it. In the spaghetti westerns we don't need an long explanation about how the no name drifter managed to get a horse or his guns or who built the spanish mission in the middle of nowhere. Or in a fantasy movie like Hobbit how does Smaug actually get all that treasure into under mountain when he couldn't actually pick up a coin to save his life (big fumble fingers) We never see Ironman's whole logistics chain so it must be impossible for him to build his suit!
I think you're trying to nitpick at scenic elements that are largely irrelevant to the role of the characters and how they are expressed.
Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
Star Wars takes place in the past.
TheSilo wrote: I Nicholas Hoult is very good, except that his character does a 180-degree personality turn for no apparent reason.
Spoiler:
He witnessed a pregnant woman dying. This alone shows how much humanity that even half life, cancer ridden war boys can have. All they want to do is drive, die and be reborn in glory, yet, here you have Nux, a war boy who, a few minutes earlier was willing to sacrifice himself to stop the rig to breaking down and crying after seeing an innocent, pregnant woman get run over in front of his eyes.
Yeah, that's more of that 'plague of modern movies' thing I mentioned above. We don't need to have absolutely every goddamn thing explained. Pacing and focus matter way more than explaining detail.
They could always have introduced a scene like the one with the Architect in Matrix Reloaded, that explained everything down to the level of mathematical equation and IIRC was extremely popular
Kidding, we saw the greenery which I took to be massive food stocks being grown, when he was rushing to the harem to check on his wives. I had imagined the food would be done like the water (Well not exactly). It'd be sent down on the lift or something.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, explain it. Explain how we know her motivation.
It isnt that clear. Why did she steal the wives in the first place.
Hell, HOW did she get into the vault?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean Nux was the best Char in the movie
Nux was the only actual character in the movie really. But he died.
Seeing only a couple people disliking it, I think I'm gonna pick up the 2 pack of Mad Max from Walmart, watch it before the weekend, then go see it over the weekend. Girlfriend has no interest in it, and friends already saw it, so I'm gonna be flying solo for it. Looking forward to it.
Well, the whole point of Furiosa leaving the plac eint the first plac eitn eh war rig was to go to GasTown at the other end of Fury Road. In the distance as they were driving, you could see that Gas Town was a giant refinery. It is pretty clear to me where they got their gas.
I'm sure the usual arrangement was Food and Water in exchange for Gas. Especially since later on they establish that the leaders of the various "evil" tribes are all related. They essentially monopolize the creation of certain things that their mini-empires need, like the "Palace Economies" of the ancient Myceneans and Minoans before the Greek Dark Age. I.e. a very, very long time ago.
Desubot wrote: Im more curious as to what the bullet farm would look like.
How they would manufacture all the parts needed and stuff. or if its just a giant ammo dump.
Collect casings. Smelt metal for Slugs. Hopefully a stockpile or mine of sulfur and saltpeter.
If it's sitting on a rich source of sulfur and saltpeter, the rest all really falls into place.
Yeah, and as we've seen from Max's misfire, it's not like the manufactured gunpowder is perfect, hence the wider use of harpoons, thrown explosives, etc.
The bulletfarm people probably keep the best for themselves and Joes private machine gun dude. Furiosa had quite a large supply, too, probably from her role as Imperator.
Anyway, one question I had was you know when Max has some flashbacks about some kids or people he couldn't save - who was that? Is that his family from the first movie? Didn't he save some kids in the third movie? It's been a long time since I've seen those movies.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anyway, one question I had was you know when Max has some flashbacks about some kids or people he couldn't save - who was that? Is that his family from the first movie? Didn't he save some kids in the third movie? It's been a long time since I've seen those movies.
Well, there's a theory kicking around about the new Max, I'll just post a link here but beware of spoilers.
pretre wrote: I thought at least one or two of the flashbacks was clearly his kids getting run over in the first movie.
Well, from the article I linked...
Spoiler:
One of the few things we see in the film that gives Hardy’s character any glimpses of backstory are flashbacks are to a little girl being run over by a big truck. Some are remembering this incorrectly as flashbacks to the original Mad Max when Toecutter and his biker gang ran down Max’s wife and child. However, Max had an infant son (Sprog), not a toddler daughter…and they were killed by motorcycles, not a truck as seen in the flashbacks of Fury Road. Definitely one of the most mysterious, unexplained aspects of Hardy’s character in the film.
Desubot wrote: Im more curious as to what the bullet farm would look like.
How they would manufacture all the parts needed and stuff. or if its just a giant ammo dump.
Collect casings. Smelt metal for Slugs. Hopefully a stockpile or mine of sulfur and saltpeter.
If it's sitting on a rich source of sulfur and saltpeter, the rest all really falls into place.
I would hazard a guess that it is part former ammo dump (the boss man rides in a tank chassis, so perhaps an old military base?) and part new manufacture....
If they are going back to the old way of making gun powder, I would also have to guess that they are located near a very large bat cave as up through the end of WW2, bat guano was THE prime source for gun powder materials.
This is of course, assuming that in all the nuclearness, that bats have survived (which is plausible, if we also assume that the majority of blasts took place during the day, when people can see, bats are sleeping, and many insects are inactive as well)
Australia has a lot of mining. I am not sure what they mine and where but bullet farm could be a mix of an old mine Australia are famous for (they have mining towns and everything) which get the supplies for bullets.
The petrol place is something I have no explanation for that.
It is Australian, thunderdome has the sydney opera house etc.
But yea I don't know if Australia has oil refineries. I know above them in the asian regions there are oil fields (Japan was fighting for them in WW2) but not sure about Australia itself.
Although. I do have to made a warband inspired by the cars.
I so am gonna make the gigahorse for my Dropzone resistance.
I just to make it clear, I dont hate the movie I love it. I just think it just falls apart when you poke it abit.
It Follows makes no sense. but i loved it.
Swastakowey wrote: It is Australian, thunderdome has the sydney opera house etc.
But yea I don't know if Australia has oil refineries. I know above them in the asian regions there are oil fields (Japan was fighting for them in WW2) but not sure about Australia itself.
I personally think it takes place in America, or at least MM and Road Warrior do anyhow I mean look at these costumes and tell me that Australians actually have much history with these items?
Spoiler:
Also.... as we all know, America has all the guns, and ergo, all the bullets. So it cant possibly take place in Australia
I dunno, finding that many suits of padding for not-rugby could actually be possible if you knew where to look, and if you found them then they'd be in good nick, because we all play real rugby (or its bogan lesser cousin) here...
My friends and I always wondered if roadwarrior survivors had happened on a sporting goods store as everyone had the same armor.
Spoiler:
Really didn't care for this guys butt floss get up. Just rewatched roadwarrior over the weekend and at the point where humongous has him chained by the neck and cuts him loose he jumps up from the car's hood you get flashed with his junk. ugh.
Swastakowey wrote: It is Australian, thunderdome has the sydney opera house etc.
But yea I don't know if Australia has oil refineries. I know above them in the asian regions there are oil fields (Japan was fighting for them in WW2) but not sure about Australia itself.
the originals, and FR, kinda hand waive some oil related stuff away, the small scale rigs they have where its just that lone small drilling well are found all over the world so that they were pumping up crude anywhere on earth is believable.
BUT
there was never any actual refining equipment shown in either movie, so its magically turned from crude into petrol, and generally the refining is the hard part (requiring electricity generally)
fury road also never explains where they get all their nitrous either lol, all in good fun though.
someone commented on blackpowder being used in modern fire arms, and the answer is a flat out NO! its not going to work outside a few specific cartridges, in a few specific guns, generally the only exceptions are old cartridges like the .38 and only in revolvers that can handle it. That, and the bullet farm needs a source for new stamped metal and ferrous for the primers, means it would have to have a large supply chain to actually pump out new cartridges. I just assume it is a huge huge cache of ammo.
Would be nice to see how bullet farm gets its stuff. Hopefully the next few movies keep the awesome action, but also have a lot more stuff that explores the world itself.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its all "Cool Look at those awesome supped up cars" until you realize how implausible they are to exist.
Well, yes, that's exactly what it is. Except most of us don't have some big realisation that this is all very implausible and start to reject this, instead we know that it's ludicrous from the outset and just have fun anyway. I mean, we're talking about a film series that started by telling us there was an oil crisis, and people responded by having lots of high speed chases in gas guzzling V8 cars.
This film is basically about fighting in modified cars in a lawless post-apocalypse. That's basically it - that fantasy engages you or it doesn't. Pointing out that it is actually very likely is meaningless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Not applicable. Because its in the future and i can think "At some point, a society with resources and advance Technology was able to do this" but its the post apocalypse. They shouldnt have resources like that. Look at Fallout. Everything is the same as when things wnet boom. People are living in this society with the tech they got.
Umm, Fallout is exactly as ludicrous (and the more recent games are even more ludicrous). And that's okay, because we're not dealing with a highly detailed effort at believable world building with either case. In both cases we're dealing with highly stylised post-apocalyptic settings. In fact, in both cases the basic premise is very similar - Fallout asked what would happen if you took an idealised 1950s America and dropped the bomb, while Mad Max looked at the collapse of society from the point of view of 1970s Australian bogan car culture.
Umm, Fallout is exactly as ludicrous (and the more recent games are even more ludicrous). And that's okay, because we're not dealing with a highly detailed effort at believable world building with either case. In both cases we're dealing with highly stylised post-apocalyptic settings. In fact, in both cases the basic premise is very similar - Fallout asked what would happen if you took an idealised 1950s America and dropped the bomb, while Mad Max looked at the collapse of society from the point of view of 1970s Australian bogan car culture.
Agreed... I think that movies like Book of Eli, for good or ill are done in a more serious tone (and say what you will about Eli, I actually like that movie) and do a pretty good job of story, backdrop and everything that goes along with.
Fair. I just want you to know. Im flip flopping on this movie a bit honestly. Sometimes I think it was good, other times not.
Im not sure how I feel about it. It did do a bit a cool stuff, like the way joe walked, like a fat old man. I mean it really showed how he may not be the best for leading.
Also, could you imagine having sex with joe? What it must have been like for those women? Ughh
hotsauceman1 wrote: Fair. I just want you to know. Im flip flopping on this movie a bit honestly. Sometimes I think it was good, other times not.
Im not sure how I feel about it. It did do a bit a cool stuff, like the way joe walked, like a fat old man. I mean it really showed how he may not be the best for leading.
My suggestion... skip school or whatever and go see it again that should help with mixed feelings
But yea I don't know if Australia has oil refineries. I know above them in the asian regions there are oil fields (Japan was fighting for them in WW2) but not sure about Australia itself.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anyway, one question I had was you know when Max has some flashbacks about some kids or people he couldn't save - who was that? Is that his family from the first movie? Didn't he save some kids in the third movie? It's been a long time since I've seen those movies.
He lost his wife and son in the first movie, but it was a little girl that was haunting his dreams in this film. And it can't be the kids he rescued in the third movie, because they flew off while he stayed behind to allow them to escape. So maybe he made a life for himself in Bartertown, had a new family and they got killed?
Don't know. Honestly this may be the first movie I've seen where seeing the previous movies actually makes this harder to follow.
One of the few things we see in the film that gives Hardy’s character any glimpses of backstory are flashbacks are to a little girl being run over by a big truck. Some are remembering this incorrectly as flashbacks to the original Mad Max when Toecutter and his biker gang ran down Max’s wife and child. However, Max had an infant son (Sprog), not a toddler daughter…and they were killed by motorcycles, not a truck as seen in the flashbacks of Fury Road. Definitely one of the most mysterious, unexplained aspects of Hardy’s character in the film.
This is true, and made me think it was either some more recent tragedy suffered after he built a new life after Bartertown, or possibly it was like your post suggested.
Spoiler:
Though I didn't consider this Max being the Feral Kid from the first movie, that's quite imaginative, if a little silly.
But more and more, I kind of just think any answer makes this less interesting than just leaving it as is. It's like the kids in the National Lampoon movies - sometimes the boy is older, sometimes the girl is older, and the answer is to just ignore all that and focus on Chevy Chase doing stupid stuff.
Actually i forget is mad max even in Australia? (like based not filmed in)
We have refineries, yes. Mostly for natural gas, though. The school I work for actually has a training refinery - it's basically house sized mess of pipes, perhaps the least impressive looking $20m structure I've ever seen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I personally think it takes place in America, or at least MM and Road Warrior do anyhow I mean look at these costumes and tell me that Australians actually have much history with these items?
Well, the shoulder pads I'll grant you, but in the third movie they actually reach Sydney, so unless you guys have an Opera House hidden away somewhere...
There's also the language, terms like 'fang it', which probably sounds to Americans like made up wasteland speach, but is a very real part of Australian bogan culture.
I think its max's kids from the first movie, just re imagined. We get tips of the hat to the originals with the music box scene and the dud 2xbarreled shotty scenes, but we also have a lot of divergence from that story as max looks younger, has his V8 back despite it being destroyed in a prior movie, and he has the music box despite giving it away in a prior movie.
So it pretty much has to be an alternate timeline for him I think.
I like that I am actually enjoying it the more I think about it though
sebster,
I took three people to go see it, none had ever seen the MM movies, they were so lost that all the action seemed like a deathproof/hobo with a shotgun/ or grind house level of action for actions sake.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed... I think that movies like Book of Eli, for good or ill are done in a more serious tone (and say what you will about Eli, I actually like that movie) and do a pretty good job of story, backdrop and everything that goes along with.
I loved the look and the world creation of the Book of Eli. It was honestly so close to being a great movie, but there were some things I just couldn't get past.
And it wasn't the final twist (which was silly but whatever). Honestly my problem there was that the main character was supposed to be a fallen Christian, but he was actually just a completely amoral turd. Nothing wrong with basing films around amoral turds (especially not in post-apocalypse movies), but it really jarred with the theme this film was supposed to be exploring.
I took three people to go see it, none had ever seen the MM movies, they were so lost that all the action seemed like a deathproof/hobo with a shotgun/ or grind house level of action for actions sake.
Is that right? Huh. I mean, this is a very specific kind of movie and if it's not a fantasy that appeals then that makes sense. But it didn't occur to me that people would have missed the meaning in amongst all the action. I don't know, I see a group of girls crawl out from a hiding space under a truck to escape slavery (complete with cutting off chastity belts) and, well, I don't think anyone misses that - it ain't subtle you know
Maybe it's more a case of it not being a theme that resonates with some people? If it doesn't give an emotional reaction, then there's no emotion to fuel the next action scene or two, so I guess it can end up feeling flat.
Maybe, I don't know. Whatever stopped them getting in to it, I don't think familiarity with the previous films is going to help.
I took three people to go see it, none had ever seen the MM movies, they were so lost that all the action seemed like a deathproof/hobo with a shotgun/ or grind house level of action for actions sake.
Is that right? Huh. I mean, this is a very specific kind of movie and if it's not a fantasy that appeals then that makes sense. But it didn't occur to me that people would have missed the meaning in amongst all the action. I don't know, I see a group of girls crawl out from a hiding space under a truck to escape slavery (complete with cutting off chastity belts) and, well, I don't think anyone misses that - it ain't subtle you know
Maybe it's more a case of it not being a theme that resonates with some people? If it doesn't give an emotional reaction, then there's no emotion to fuel the next action scene or two, so I guess it can end up feeling flat.
Maybe, I don't know. Whatever stopped them getting in to it, I don't think familiarity with the previous films is going to help.
oh yeah, they know what is happening for sure in the sense of the what, just not the why i guess, the movie seems to rely on the others to establish set/setting and the protagonist. Its like hobo with a shotgun, we get why he does it it makes perfect sense, but we dont have much emotional content in the setting, protagonist, or antagonists and its just a stringing together of action scenes (though HWAS is not even close in quality of action scenes to Mad max). My brother loved the idea of it when I explained to him before going what mad max was, dystopic wasteland movies are up his ally.
The first scene where max is run off the road so very easily, but then he defeats three towns worth of vehicles through out the rest of the movie? just seemed a bit off. that and when max wastes half a mag on warning shots... the feeling that we are in a post apocalyptic world where things are scarce just isnt there, even if we do have an attempt to explain why there is no scarcity of all these things.
The scene where max is on top of the tanker, flashes back to his daughter, then gets the arrow through his hand into his head is awesome though, and there are lots of good scenes like that in the movie.
The action was extremely well done this is a new standard to live up to of action movies if thats where the series is going. I do hope the next one keeps the same level of action, but shows it can do other types of scene really really well too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Fair. I just want you to know. Im flip flopping on this movie a bit honestly. Sometimes I think it was good, other times not.
Im not sure how I feel about it. It did do a bit a cool stuff, like the way joe walked, like a fat old man. I mean it really showed how he may not be the best for leading.
Also, could you imagine having sex with joe? What it must have been like for those women? Ughh
Wait what? Old people can't be leaders? And, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but you're going to e hard pressed to find anyone else wondering about what boning Joe would be like.
Really didn't care for this guys butt floss get up. Just rewatched roadwarrior over the weekend and at the point where humongous has him chained by the neck and cuts him loose he jumps up from the car's hood you get flashed with his junk. ugh.
Really didn't care for this guys butt floss get up. Just rewatched roadwarrior over the weekend and at the point where humongous has him chained by the neck and cuts him loose he jumps up from the car's hood you get flashed with his junk. ugh.
No need to get testy
I think he has the right of it, we all got shafted when we watched that scene
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im not saying old people cant lead. but that he may not be the best.
Most likely, in that environment he had managed to "cement" his leadership position long before he would be considered old, and that his position had become so safe that even if/when he shouldn't be physically capable of maintaining his position through might, he still does. Whether it's via his new religious cult (the half-life war boys) or just the fact that no one's tried in such a long time, he has still managed to hold onto his power.
I mean the whole him wanting an heir was probably why he wanted his wives bsck. He was old and dying, he was scared of it too I think. I think he saw an heir that would be strong and intelligent was what he wanted.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Fair. I just want you to know. Im flip flopping on this movie a bit honestly. Sometimes I think it was good, other times not.
Im not sure how I feel about it. It did do a bit a cool stuff, like the way joe walked, like a fat old man. I mean it really showed how he may not be the best for leading.
Also, could you imagine having sex with joe? What it must have been like for those women? Ughh
Wait what? Old people can't be leaders? And, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but you're going to e hard pressed to find anyone else wondering about what boning Joe would be like.
Castro District Halloween Party 2015 will not leave this question unanswered.
easysauce wrote: oh yeah, they know what is happening for sure in the sense of the what, just not the why i guess, the movie seems to rely on the others to establish set/setting and the protagonist. Its like hobo with a shotgun, we get why he does it it makes perfect sense, but we dont have much emotional content in the setting, protagonist, or antagonists and its just a stringing together of action scenes (though HWAS is not even close in quality of action scenes to Mad max). My brother loved the idea of it when I explained to him before going what mad max was, dystopic wasteland movies are up his ally.
HWAS was deliberately trashy, though. The events had no emotional content because they weren't really meant to - the various awful things that happened were elevated to a ludicrous extreme for cheap laughs. It isn't really a criticism of the movie, because the film is meant to be trashy fun. I don't think that's what Fury Road wanted at all - while there was a lot of carnage, it aimed for that carnage to have a level of emotional meaning. It obviously didn't succeed for everyone.
I know what you're saying about Max getting captured easily, and it did seem a bit off. On the one hand, the franchise has always focused more on circumstance than heroes and hapless extras getting slaughtered - in the right circumstance even Max gets bested by nobodies in the second film. But it was so quick it did feel a bit perfunctory.
And I agree with the crazy waste of resources, but then that doesn't just apply to bullets but to fuel and to vehicles as well. But that's really a post-apocalyptic genre thing, you just accept it and move on.
The action was extremely well done this is a new standard to live up to of action movies if thats where the series is going. I do hope the next one keeps the same level of action, but shows it can do other types of scene really really well too.
I think the reason the action scenes did so well is because they were such a relief from the last few years of CGI spectacle. Hopefully it will mark a return to more grounded action and effects work in the future.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I mean the whole him wanting an heir was probably why he wanted his wives bsck. He was old and dying, he was scared of it too I think. I think he saw an heir that would be strong and intelligent was what he wanted.
Pretty sure he laid that out explicitly in the movie.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anyway, one question I had was you know when Max has some flashbacks about some kids or people he couldn't save - who was that? Is that his family from the first movie? Didn't he save some kids in the third movie? It's been a long time since I've seen those movies.
Well, there's a theory kicking around about the new Max, I'll just post a link here but beware of spoilers.
Anyone else notice this. Max narrates he used to be a cop......but in this civilization, only the really old remember civilization.
someone's hardiest age couldn't be a cop.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Anyone else notice this. Max narrates he used to be a cop......but in this civilization, only the really old remember civilization.
someone's hardiest age couldn't be a cop.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Anyone else notice this. Max narrates he used to be a cop......but in this civilization, only the really old remember civilization.
someone's hardiest age couldn't be a cop.
Or perhaps he was a "rookie" cop when gak started heading south??
Perhaps his constant movement staves off any radiation landing on him and sticking??
One thing I will point out in seriousness though.... I think time becomes extremely subjective if all the clocks have stopped. We'd be forced to go back to a true "sun time", hence why people count days instead of years and hours.
And in the course of shooting, I would say there are some scenes where Hardy does appear to be older than Theron (though I think IRL, the reverse is true), and as we know, she was born at some point when her homeland was capable of bearing plant-borne foods for people. What is debatable is whether this was near the "beginning of the end" or sometime well after the nukes started being tossed about.
The Mad Max movies don't have a particularly strict continuity. It's meant to be loose and dreamlike. We're talking about a movie series that has cast the same actor for similar but different roles not just once but THREE TIMES now.
People can have fun with this stuff if they want, but Mad Max films aren't Marvel movies. Or even Star Wars movies.
Fun fan theory -- Was the Harry Callahan in later films a clone of the original, since he clearly quit the force at the end of Dirty Harry and there was no reference made to him rejoining the force or at least diving in the water to retrieve his badge? Ooooooo.
gorgon wrote: The Mad Max movies don't have a particularly strict continuity. It's meant to be loose and dreamlike.
Even the director/writer/producer has said as much.
Yes, but being a continuity lawyer is a longstanding tradition of people trying to maintain the appearance of being smart and critical about a movie/game/series without actually having anything of value to say.
Was anyone else slightly bothered by the mixture of accents in the movie? I think the sparsity of dialogue made it more bearable than it would have been otherwise. Charlize Theron in particular sounded pretty American. Would've been a bit cooler IMO if the director unified the accents more.
And now I can't remember if Tina Turner put on an Australian accent or not.
jasper76 wrote: And now I can't remember if Tina Turner put on an Australian accent or not.
She didn't.
curran12 wrote: being a continuity lawyer is a longstanding tradition of people trying to maintain the appearance of being smart and critical about a movie/game/series without actually having anything of value to say
gorgon wrote: The Mad Max movies don't have a particularly strict continuity. It's meant to be loose and dreamlike.
Even the director/writer/producer has said as much.
Yes, but being a continuity lawyer is a longstanding tradition of people trying to maintain the appearance of being smart and critical about a movie/game/series without actually having anything of value to say.
Thats not exactly true having continuity in a story is very important... just look at game of thrones where they employ a team specifically to ensure that, and every movie has people paid to do exactly that... yes stories that play fast and loose with continuity can still be entertaining and fun, but its an important part of suspending the audiences disbelief.
I could easily say those who can watch action scene after action scene with no story linking them and glaring continuity errors are just the lowest common denominator that that kind of film appeals to, so them being raving fan bois contributes nothing of value.
The film has some problems that deserve criticism, just because you don't see it that way, doesn't make those criticisms of no value, and certainly doesn't justify your `everyone else is stupid for not thinking the same as me`` comments
That, despite these issues, the film is still a good one, speaks volumes to how well done the action was if it makes up for the lack of story. that doesnt mean it couldnt have been an even better film had the story gotten a bit more attention.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Anyone else notice this. Max narrates he used to be a cop......but in this civilization, only the really old remember civilization.
someone's hardiest age couldn't be a cop.
Maybe the radiation slows down aging
yeah, that max is so young, indicating not much time has passed, even if max was a cop in his early 20`s, and 20-30 years have passed since the apocalypse, thats still a really short time for things like the citadel to get to the point they are at.
I mean, we presume enough smart and skilled people were left over to build things like the citedel, gas town, and bullet farm, but where are they allÉ
also, for some reason, max and his guys can go through the pass, close it, joes crew can clear the pass the first time and get through, yet the 2nd time... they cannot clear the pass for some reason and are trapped forever on the other sideÉ
and everyone at the citedel just rolls over when they come back cause joe is deadÉ
if it was that easy, why didnt furiosa just kill joe to begin withÉ
surely there must have been some kind of 2nd in command or someone who was next in line, but no, the entire citadel pulls an abrupt 180 from worshiping joe to accepting their new leader
easysauce wrote: Thats not exactly true having continuity in a story is very important... just look at game of thrones where they employ a team specifically to ensure that, and every movie has people paid to do exactly that... yes stories that play fast and loose with continuity can still be entertaining and fun, but its an important part of suspending the audiences disbelief.
No, because not all media works like comic books, where half the game is linking together little bits of lore and figuring out how they interact. A lot of the time, in fact almost all of the time outside of nerd media, that stuff just doesn't matter at all.
It's important to realise the Mad Max films have a deliberate mythical quality to them - characters are fairly broadly drawn and things don't break down neatly in terms of time. It's almost as if what we're seeing isn't a direct transcription of events, but a foundational myth being retold years or even generations later. In Mad Max 2 this is explicit - this is the story retold by the Feral Child. In Mad Max 3 it isn't explicit, but again it is dealing with the formation of a new civilisation that Max helped deliver from peril. The same happens again in Fury Road.
So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.
So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.
Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.
I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.
So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.
Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.
I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.
Some directors like to tell the same story over and over again as variations on a theme.
I'm talking about you Luc Besson!
I can appreciate the gems that those variations produce. FR is one of those gems.
And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.
So perhaps Max is a collection of heroic figures from the past of many tribes? Maybe, but also maybe not. Like the speculation about the Feral Child earlier, it's nice to think about but if it was definitively answered in the positive it'd actually make the whole thing less interesting.
Perhaps Max is just a glutton for "Sob story" people, and can't help but get suckered in to helping them (MM2, Thunderdome) and we're seeing one man helping a larger number of people over a nondescript period of time.
I personally do not think that the Feral Child is "Max" in Fury Road, as there are too many pieces that don't seem to fit, but either way, I think that Seb is correct in that, very differently to most other movies, the Mad Max world is in no way hindered by a lack of timeline.
Some directors like to tell the same story over and over again as variations on a theme.
I'm talking about you Luc Besson!
I can appreciate the gems that those variations produce. FR is one of those gems.
And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.
Could you point those ties out to me? I loved farscape but any references in mad max went right over my head.
Insurgency Walker wrote: And did anyone else notice the Farscape actress? 2 Farscape ties to MadMax now.
One of the fun things about Mad Max for Australians is spotting all the bit part and soapie actors who turn up in minor roles. I didn't watch Farscape so I didn't get any of those, though.
But there were a couple in there that probably only Australians would get. The best one in this film was Quentin Kenihan, he was the paralyzed kid in the chair, who looked through the telescope. He was a fixture on Australian tv through the late 80s and early 90s - he was born with a whole host of medical conditions, so when he was a kid he did a lot of pretty sappy tv specials. But somehow he grew up to be a really awesome guy, who's both hilarious and an excellent advocate for people with disabilities. Seeing him in turn up in the post-apocalypse was awesome.
The other one was Megan Gale, who played the pointlessly nude chick up the electricity tower. She's something of a really fething hateful presence on tv and radio, famous for no reason basically. Seeing her get run over by a truck was awesome.
Saw it today and I fething loved it... it was over the top, crazy, insane, and awesome. My buddy said he wished then elaborated on the 'crow people' on the stilts and some other stuff, but I am glad they didn't. I enjoy moments of, "What the feth was that?" with no explanation.
Yeah, sometimes over explaining stuff can cause things to lose some of the mystique of the world or characters or muddle the movie themes and message by focusing too much on irrelevant details, this movie does a great job of giving a little bit of explanation and letting the audience's
imagination run wild and letting them piece together the rest.
Cheesecat wrote: Yeah, sometimes over explaining stuff can cause things to lose some of the mystique of the world or characters or muddle the movie themes and message by focusing too much on irrelevant details, this movie does a great job of giving a little bit of explanation and letting the audience's
imagination run wild and letting them piece together the rest.
Cloverfield was ruined for me that way. Over explanations can kill interest in movies.
Watched it, really enjoyed it. It was one massive action sequence, but it worked. Which is odd because action movies are not my cup of tea. Unlike other explody movies, this one worked by having an individual event, focusing the narrative on it until it was complete, then moving on, all whilst keeping the chain of events connected.
It meant lots of stuff got blown up but I didn't get a headache keeping up with the action - almost completely the opposite of the crap Bey produces.
Didn't like Hardy's accent though. Also I watched it in 2D. Whilst watching it I'd completely forgotten it was available in 3D, which shows good directing. Right up to the point when the guitar guy get's blown up and his guitar comes thrusting to the front of the screen. I groaned so loud the whole audience must have heard me. Totally immersion breaking and a real let down.
Henry wrote: Watched it, really enjoyed it. It was one massive action sequence, but it worked. Which is odd because action movies are not my cup of tea. Unlike other explody movies, this one worked by having an individual event, focusing the narrative on it until it was complete, then moving on, all whilst keeping the chain of events connected.
It meant lots of stuff got blown up but I didn't get a headache keeping up with the action - almost completely the opposite of the crap Bey produces.
Didn't like Hardy's accent though. Also I watched it in 2D. Whilst watching it I'd completely forgotten it was available in 3D, which shows good directing. Right up to the point when the guitar guy get's blown up and his guitar comes thrusting to the front of the screen. I groaned so loud the whole audience must have heard me. Totally immersion breaking and a real let down.
I quite enjoyed the flying guitar at the end. Was a bit of a tongue in cheek nod back to the old 3D movies where it was all about having stuff fly out at you, I thought.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I heard, and this is my experiance "OMG, All the car stunts are real, they crashed those cars for real and rode in the canyon."
an I keep telling them that half those shots would be impossible W/O CGI in some shape or form
But they did crash those cars for real. The fact that they digitally composited together footage of a car exploding in a desert with cars driving in a desert doesn't mean that the statement "They used mostly practical effects in this movie!" is somehow untrue. And they did ride in the canyon, it just wasn't the same canyon we saw.
Saw it in 3D last night. Loved it. I almost don't have a complaint about it. It was the perfect mesh of Mad Max meets the Road Warrior with a modern updating.
I literally cannot stop saying "Oh, What a Day ! What a lovely day!" in my head.
I am told by the internet that it's 'feminazi propaganda', but I don't see it...
Oh well, just as much credit in that assertion as there is in any assertion involving the term 'feminazi'.
Me neither.
And I hear that the supposed "MRA boycott" is nothing of the sort, it was just some clickbait troll website farming for clicks. The whole thing is completely exaggerated.
I hope so. I think George has done it in quite a genius way and managed to weave that story into a movie that will attract a lot of people for other reasons. At its heart, this is a woman’s story. In one scene, he shows those milking machines where women are nothing more than their milk, and it’s so symbolic. Even that first sign where it says, “Women are not things.” Where have we seen that before?
It’s a sort of sneaky feminism. When you say the premise—a woman warrior escapes with female sex slaves—that doesn’t necessarily sound like a blockbuster. But because it’s an action film, guys will see it. Something similar is happening with another summer film: Amy Schumer, who’s a really outspoken feminist comedian, is coming out with the rom-com Trainwreck. LeBron James is in the movie, which I think might lure men who might not otherwise go. Is that subversive feminism the best way to address women’s issues in film?
One day, we won’t have to sneak it. One day we will be overt. One of the great things about this film is that when you have women on your side, you have a better chance of surviving. It’s clear that we’re all served better when women are equal. We don’t want to dominate. We just want our stories to be given equal consideration—to also get a spot on the playing field.
The question worth asking is, is the film being feminist propaganda necessarily a bad thing, and does the film's feminist propaganda prevent it from being an awesome action film?
I would go to see it even if it got utterly terrible reviews, as i'm a huge mad max fan, but the fact it's getting good reviews is all the better.
.... all i could think of was Waaaaagh! most of the movie ...
