Mad Max: Fury Road

frozenfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

Very happy you're not a scriptwriter!

:pac:

"hello max would you like a lift we are going to the shop blonde girl wants to pick up some schlonglanger"

edit: turns out blondie was saying "The Dag: He's a crazy Smeg who eats Slanger!".. sounded more like schlonglanger to me

johnny_ultimate

There is no 'one size fits all' approach to character development and story, every film needs to do its own thing based on its particular demand. Some will devote all their energy to them, others will devote none at all, and neither is a better or worse approach - it differs radically from film to film. That said, a common problem with so many blockbusters these days is they favour 'plot' above all else (i.e. the literal and usually over-complicated mechanics of what's happening, as opposed to what it means). But plot is very rarely the most interesting thing about a film. What makes Fury Road so refreshing is its bare minimum of plotting. There is instead character development, there is worldbuilding and there is some actual thematic depth (and more important, thematic consistency, which is something the likes of Tomorrowland lack despite their ambitions), it's all just dealt with with admirable efficiency, care and - surprisingly for a film with a guy whose guitar spews flames - subtlety. Above all, it doesn't disrupt the film's main goal, which is to be a nutso extended car chase where everything goes. I wrote some thoughts on that elsewhere so I'll copy them below:

'Max' has never been more appropriate description of this film's philosophy - yet at the same time there's a welcome economy to the film's storytelling. A fleeting prologue voiceover aside, little time is wasted on establishing lore, motivations, backstories, relationships and so on. The film's ideas and themes emerge nimbly – some sharply considered exposition aside - and the details of the world are dispensed at a pleasant pace instead of an immediate overload, perhaps considerate of the fact many viewers will already be in need of a mild sedative. It is a captivating world, and a brutal one. There is crossbreeding, brainwashed kamikaze troops lusting for Valhalla, slavery, corrupt & grotesque leaders, and many more horrors besides. The transformation that was underway in the original Mad Max films is complete – a dark future, although slivers of humanity still creep through.

The much-heralded / lightly-feared (by some) feminist subtext emerges as one of the film's most unexpected assets, especially in a genre and series that sometimes overdose on testosterone. The postergirl is of course Charlize Theron, whose Imperator Furiosa is a powerful, intelligence and sly character, perhaps more so than the titular character. A strong case could be made that she's even something of a secondary protagonist here, with a clearer emotional arc than Max himself. More interesting, though, is the film's approach to a hoary old trope. After introducing some deceptively stereotypical damsels in distress at an early point – in the dystopian equivalent of a gratuitous wet t-shirt scene - Miller and his co-writers spend the next 90 minutes challenging, exploring and mildly subverting those gender roles to quite pleasing effect.

The entire story hinges on the protagonist – Immortan Joe – pursuing the convoy in search of his 'stolen' property – i.e. these five fertile women. The film – and hopefully the audience – is clearly quite disapproving of this idea of women as 'objects', and does its best to articulate those disapprovals. As the narrative barrels towards its destination (and eventually back towards the point of departure), these women become more active participants in their own story. A further twist to spice things up sees a group of elderly women introduced, who turn out to be some of the most capable, accomplished fighters in the film – a welcome riposte to the stark age and gender divide in action films generally.

Fury Road doesn't go quite as far as it could - one or two of the damsels remain damselled, and a few men do step in to save the day from time to time - but nonetheless it's supremely satisfying to see male and female characters operating on a level playing field for much of the running time (although, in this violent world, that also inevitably means some of the women don't see the end of this high-stakes, bloody roadtrip). As a matter of fact, it's the women who ultimately literally ascend to a position of power and authority as the film cuts to black – an encouraging, hopeful closing image if ever there was one.

And it's not the lively gender politics of the film that minimise Max's role in proceedings, but rather Hardy's performance. His gruff accent doesn't manage to transcend its ridiculousness, and for that reason largely struggles to convince when he is speaking – thankfully, something of a rarity. Max is at his best, then, when keeping mum, and some of his straightforward gestures and nods make for some of the most effective, affecting and humourous character beats. At the start of the film, he has been dehumanised, the brutality of the world having worn him down, and he's running on fumes (aka survival instinct). He's also kind of an asshole. But as the story progresses he becomes the familiar Max of mythical proportions, re-calibrating his moral compass and becoming a righteous, unstoppable force for good instead of selfishness. He is in many respects reminiscent the ronin in Yojimbo, or The Man With the No Name – although, as he belatedly concedes as a new friend hovers on the border of life and death, his name is Max.

flangemeistro

What an absolute total crock of ****e. Found it very hard to stay awake. Couldn't wait for it to be over. There's off the wall and then there's just plain obscure.

Faith+1

flangemeistro wrote: »

What an absolute total crock of ****e. Found it very hard to stay awake. Couldn't wait for it to be over. There's off the wall and then there's just plain obscure.

What were you expecting? A deep political thiller where they go joy riding during their breaks?

MrStuffins

flangemeistro wrote: »

What an absolute total crock of ****e. Found it very hard to stay awake. Couldn't wait for it to be over. There's off the wall and then there's just plain obscure.

As much as there isn't really a need to have seen the originals, plot-wise, there's definitely a need to have seen the originals to prepare yourself for how off the wall and "mad" this film really is. I went with my brother & my girlfriend. The girlfriend had never seen the originals and thought a lot of it was just too weird. My brother had and he loved it because he was expecting the madness.

rockatansky

flangemeistro wrote: »

What an absolute total crock of ****e. Found it very hard to stay awake. Couldn't wait for it to be over. There's off the wall and then there's just plain obscure.

Have you seen the first 3? Can I ask what exactly you were expecting to see before you entered the Theatre?

The Black Oil

Ordinarily, I wasn't going to bother with this, but hearing that it irked some MRA brigade and the hype had me intrigued. I heard a brief exchange between two people walking ahead of me as I was leaving the screening. 'Did you fall asleep? I was on the verge of fall asleep'. I didn't find it to be the case, but like the pub burger I had last weekend, it was a tad heavy on the digestive system.

I only saw the first one a few months ago. This is on another scale. It's a near unrelenting beast of a film and it feels like the one George Miller wanted to make. I can only imagine the likes of Michael Bay ****ing it up. The frantic rhythm of the opening escape attempt is matched by how it's shot. The sand storm is pretty great. In the main, people are joined together by their tribal elements, impoverished circumstances, a bastard of a tyrant and blood. Hope, to borrow from Shawshank, is a dangerous thing. Charlize Theron's character is skilled, well-equipped and has no hesitation about taking charge. Who doesn't have a few Glocks in their truck cab, right? I really liked how, though the film's titular character was on screen almost the whole time, he effectively took a back seat for a bunch of it. I'm trying to think how common this is, I guess it kinda is. Anyway, I thought that was a real strength.

Now, then, let us all have a moment in life where we end up chained somewhere in the desert, carrying some unconscious goon and a car door.

rockatansky

frozenfrozen wrote: »

It was well shot, well lit, and the action was very good, but the complete lack of character development and unengaging storyline pushed it down from an 8/10 film to somewhere around a 6/10.

This to me is just weird. Since when has 'character development' been necessary in making a good action movie? Because that's what this is. Like the other Mad Max Movies before it (well except for 3). And Max is pissed. Surely that's all the Character Development that required??

Sudden Valley

Great movie. Great stunts, cars, and story. So many badass scenes.Nice change from the last few superhero movies I've seen which have begun to see pretty generic. Only complaint is Tom hardy accent- it was all over the place.

Arghus

I really, really liked this movie. It's one of the years best for me, but I don't understand why people can't just express their dislike for it, without being pilloried for it.

It feels like you can't criticise Fury Road in this thread. It's a great film, but it's not completely perfect.

It seems like whenever people complain about the relative lack of back story, they are met with a barrage of disbelief.

Personally, I was just fine with a lean narrative, devoid of unnecessary filler, but I don't think it's an outrageous thing to say that in your opinion, subjectively, it could have done with a bit more.

joe40

Just saw the movie. A 2 hour car chase. But what a chase!!!! Brilliant

bucketybuck

Arghus wrote: »

It seems like whenever people complain about the relative lack of back story, they are met with a barrage of disbelief.

Because it would be like watching Pitch Perfect 2 and complaining about the lack of blood and gore.

Not only did Mad Max not need a load of back story or exposition, such things would actually have made the film far worse. The film is far far better for not having a load of back story, so complaining about its absence shows quite a misunderstanding.

antodeco

Has this been semi pulled from cinemas? Vue are no longer showing it. Very strange

pixelburp

Still seems to be going strong in Cineworld!

timetogo

antodeco wrote: »

Has this been semi pulled from cinemas? Vue are no longer showing it. Very strange

Went to see it in Vue last week. They had no posters of it up and the cinema was pretty empty.

I went this week in Movies@Swords on Tuesday and the screening was about 60% full.

.ak

Just saw it the other day. What a fantastic, raw piece of cinema. Stunning wide angle shots that we just don't see anymore. No need for narrative, no consulted back story, just a situation. Brilliant. If I had to pick one thing thing to complain about it would be

when the rig exploded in the end... Was there need for the stupid cgi? Or am I missing something?

Can't wait to see it again. The pace of it makes it very watchable.

Also, is the title Fury Road a play on words? I felt Furiosa was the main character.

Seanachai

.ak wrote: »

Just saw it the other day. What a fantastic, raw piece of cinema. Stunning wide angle shots that we just don't see anymore. No need for narrative, no consulted back story, just a situation. Brilliant. If I had to pick one thing thing to complain about it would be

when the rig exploded in the end... Was there need for the stupid cgi? Or am I missing something?

Can't wait to see it again. The pace of it makes it very watchable.

Also, is the title Fury Road a play on words? I felt Furiosa was the main character.

I thought the photography and stunt work in the film was amazing and liked the way they used as little cgi as possible. I didn't like the pace though, I prefer the feel of the older films, they were a lot more endearing and you felt like time was slowed down and you could get lost in it. But this is the way film has been for a while now, if they are doing a sequel(s) I hope they slow it down and expand it with more focus on the story and characters than the action or the scenery.

orubiru

Arghus wrote: »

I really, really liked this movie. It's one of the years best for me, but I don't understand why people can't just express their dislike for it, without being pilloried for it.

It feels like you can't criticise Fury Road in this thread. It's a great film, but it's not completely perfect.

It seems like whenever people complain about the relative lack of back story, they are met with a barrage of disbelief.

Personally, I was just fine with a lean narrative, devoid of unnecessary filler, but I don't think it's an outrageous thing to say that in your opinion, subjectively, it could have done with a bit more.

The problem is not that people criticise the film its that their criticism is usually so weak or even innacurate.

Honestly, whenever I hear someone say "I fell asleep during it" or "I had trouble staying awake" as part of a criticism of a movie I just start to tune out because it's such a stupid thing to say.

If someone was so tired that they couldn't actually stay awake for 2 hours then how does that reflect on the movie?

Ask almost any fiction writer and they will tell you "show, don't tell". One of the reasons Fury Road is getting such high reviews from critics is because the story is streamlined so well. When the audience starts to demand more exposition in a movie like this it's kind of like someone who wants to pour salt into their soup or cover a Kobe beef steak in Heinz Tomato Ketchup. Its like you are demanding that the movie lower its standards.

People attack criticism like that because it's rubbish, weak, criticism.

"That movie was a crock of s***! I almost fell asleep." I'm sorry but it says more about the reviewer than the movie and I think its OK for people to call them out on it.

CiaranW

The movie was absolutely bat sh*t crazy, but I loved it!

What exactly is MRA?

Looper007

antodeco wrote: »

Has this been semi pulled from cinemas? Vue are no longer showing it. Very strange

It's still getting a lot of showings in Cineworld while Tomorrowland is now down to six showings a day. I think the films strong word of mouth is working wonders for this amazing film.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is MRA?

Manchild Rage Army

e_e

orubiru wrote: »

The problem is not that people criticise the film its that their criticism is usually so weak or even innacurate.

Honestly, whenever I hear someone say "I fell asleep during it" or "I had trouble staying awake" as part of a criticism of a movie I just start to tune out because it's such a stupid thing to say.

If someone was so tired that they couldn't actually stay awake for 2 hours then how does that reflect on the movie?

Ask almost any fiction writer and they will tell you "show, don't tell". One of the reasons Fury Road is getting such high reviews from critics is because the story is streamlined so well. When the audience starts to demand more exposition in a movie like this it's kind of like someone who wants to pour salt into their soup or cover a Kobe beef steak in Heinz Tomato Ketchup. Its like you are demanding that the movie lower its standards.

People attack criticism like that because it's rubbish, weak, criticism.

"That movie was a crock of s***! I almost fell asleep." I'm sorry but it says more about the reviewer than the movie and I think its OK for people to call them out on it.

What irks me in threads like this is that people always narrow a film's worth down to sheer plot mechanics when if anything it's the film making (shot composition, editing, performance, sound design, music) that is far more vital to a film's success. I don't want to pull the elitist "You just don't get it maaaaaan." card but I can't help but feel that people will get so much more out of cinema when they drop this obsession with plot and realize the other amazing ways a film can speak to you.

It's this annoying Cinema Sins/Honest Trailers phenomenon of nitpicking where a film's quality can be determined by the amount of tiny holes you can prod in the narrative. I kind of loathe it, hell I'd argue that the vast majority of the greatest films of all time have pretty barebones narratives. This film too is so much richer in having well drawn characters with crystal clear motivations, can you imagine how much more tedious this would have been if Immorten Joe would have had several scenes going on about infinity gems or unobtainium or whatever arbitrary nonsense that other blockbusters try to stuff in to appear weighty.

orubiru

e_e wrote: »

What irks me in threads like this is that people always narrow a film's worth down to sheer plot mechanics when if anything it's the film making (shot composition, editing, performance, sound design, music) that is far more vital to a film's success. I don't want to pull the elitist "You just don't get it maaaaaan." card but I can't help but feel that people will get so much more out of cinema when they drop this obsession with plot and realize the other amazing ways a film can speak to you.

It's this annoying Cinema Sins/Honest Trailers phenomenon of nitpicking where a film's quality can be determined by the amount of tiny holes you can prod in the narrative. I kind of loathe it, hell I'd argue that the vast majority of the greatest films of all time have pretty barebones narratives.

The thing is that Cinema Sins and Screen Junkies (the guys who make the Honest Trailers) LOVE movies. A lot of these guys are involved with production and editing and they understand all the effort that goes in to making good content. They even love the movies they make fun of. The same goes for the Red Letter Media guys.

The problem is that folks see those videos and try to copy what those guys are doing without really understanding why they are doing it.

It's kind of become popular to just trash a movie because its easier to do that that it is to take the time to appreciate something that took years to make.

I know loads of people who constantly try to "one up" movies or TV shows by trying to guess whats gonna happen next. As if by getting ahead of the story they are somehow more intelligent than the story tellers.

I think it's definitely OK to pull the "you just don't get it card" when people genuinely just don't get it.

I am sure there were tons of people who went to see Fury Road who spent the whole time going "who's this guy? whos that? where are they going? who is she? what are they doing now? now where are they going?" and then left the movie feeling unsatisfied because nothing was explained.

e_e

Yeah I've lost count of the amount of "Oh good, another film I don't have to see now. Thanks!" comments I've seen on Cinema Sins/Honest Trailers videos. Drives me mad, completely missing the point and magic of movies and treating plot as the be all and end all of whether something is good or not. I do think Screen Junkies et al have good intentions and their tongue in cheek to an extent but I think people are in response applying that snarky and reductive attitude to movies far too much. We need to be completely open to what a film is doing on its own terms and not go in with this idea of second guessing the movie the whole time.

pixelburp

Huh. I didn't know Cinema Sins and the Honest Trailer series were made by the same group; I get Sins is also meant to be comedic, but it's level of eye-watering pedantry and nitpicking supersedes any attempt at humour. The videos drive me bananas, simply because it reminds me of the worse kind of cinema fan that now floats about the internet. At least Honest Trailers exists as a lampooning of the trailer form that exists now (or rather, before the passing of Don LaFontaine) with some snarky asides about the film. Its strokes are pretty broad - except of course when they rip apart a genuinely bad film.

I agree with the comment about 'show, don't tell' and it's sad that this concept needs refreshing in 2015. The plot of Mad Max was there, albeit mostly on the screen rather than through the acoustics: in every visual; camera choice; background detail; utterance or demeanour of the character. The presence of a Captain Infodump would have only demeaned the narrative, and frankly, in all likelyhood, those who complain about Mad Max's thin 'plot' would then complain about being battered over the head by an expository bore

Don't get me wrong, I actually wanted to know more about the world of Mad Max & Immortan Joe's set-up; in particular Bullet Farm and Gas Town, and how those minor 'Lords' figured in the landscape. They seemed like fleeting, enticingly grotesque characters. But sometimes, gratification isn't always its own reward: half the fun is walking away and imagining what was going on when the screen faded to black

antodeco

Confirmed that VUE aren't showing it anymore! Off to Odeon it is!

Are Cinema Sins and Screen Junkies now the same? I know that Honest Trailers and Cinema Sins often have many crossovers.

Anyway, yeah, they absolutely love movies, you can tell, and you should never use what they say as a reason not to see a movie. I mean, come on, they've done it to some movies that are classics.

orubiru

Deleted User wrote: »

Are Cinema Sins and Screen Junkies now the same? I know that Honest Trailers and Cinema Sins often have many crossovers.

Anyway, yeah, they absolutely love movies, you can tell, and you should never use what they say as a reason not to see a movie. I mean, come on, they've done it to some movies that are classics.

They are not the same. Screen Junkies do the Honest Trailers but Cinema Sins are a different group. They do loads of crossovers though.

orubiru

e_e wrote: »

Yeah I've lost count of the amount of "Oh good, another film I don't have to see now. Thanks!" comments I've seen on Cinema Sins/Honest Trailers videos. Drives me mad, completely missing the point and magic of movies and treating plot as the be all and end all of whether something is good or not. I do think Screen Junkies et al have good intentions and their tongue in cheek to an extent but I think people are in response applying that snarky and reductive attitude to movies far too much. We need to be completely open to what a film is doing on its own terms and not go in with this idea of second guessing the movie the whole time.

I think the Screen Junkies recently had a bit where they were showing their Thor Honest Trailer to one of the writers of Thor. Pretty interesting to see the reaction and explanations actually.

Yeah, I agree with you that people tend to just see the attention that these "nitpicks" get and go for that kind of surface level criticism.

Interstellar is a good example. Of all the things in the movie that could be talked about people were obsessed about whether or not a planet could really have huge waves. Ridiculous.