Mad Max: Fury Road

rockatansky

Reggie. wrote: »

What's that

This:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057178053

.ak

nc19 wrote: »

I just felt that if you took the Max character out of this film and changed its name it would have just been another end of the world type film. Nothing in it screamed Mad Max imo. It was too polished and shiny imo. The original was gritty, striped back. Obviously vastly different budgets and I feel Fury Road suffered from a large budget.

I have watched an uncountable amount of ripped movies over the years, some before seeing them on the big screen, some after. Never made a difference to me.

I have watched the new Bonds, Expendables, Pixar stuff, Fast and Furious etc all as cam rips and enjoyed them. This film for whatever reason left me cold.

Not sure how you can say it was shiny, the attention to detail to making the world look gritty (the vehicle work especially) is amazing... Nothing looks out of place from the universe (bar the first movie but obviously things have moved on).

The main character in all the Mad Max movies was Australia/the dead world, it's never been about Max. This movie is just another journey on it, and it really highlights that. Furiosa is the main character imo, and I have nothing wrong about that. Why setup more character building for Max when that's already been done in the past 3 movies?

I think that people fail to realise that Max is a phantom, he's a legend whose exploits are told around camp fire. He is not flesh and blood, he can take on overwhelming odds and always come out on top, which is brilliantly showcased in the film when he disappears into the night to take out the pursuers. We don't see how it went down, just a dis-shelved Max returning with an array of weapons.

Also, saying there is no difference between as crappy cam rip and the cinema projection is amongst the dumbest things I have ever seen. I actually feel sorry for anyone who feels that way as they are depriving themselves of so much and honestly refuse to listen to their opinion on a film as anything they say is instantly invalid.

timetogo

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, saying there is no difference between as crappy cam rip and the cinema projection is amongst the dumbest things I have ever seen. I actually feel sorry for anyone who feels that way as they are depriving themselves of so much and honestly refuse to listen to their opinion on a film as anything they say is instantly invalid.

+100
I've watched perfect quality movies on an airplane and thought they were crap because of the display format, only to watch them years later and think they weren't that bad. I don't bother with cams at all now as the crappy quality always detracts hugely from the film for me.

FutureGuy

My general opinion is that some people will never EVER be pleased. I do not argue with such people. One of my friends on facebook has not ranked a film higher than "enjoyable fare" over the last five years.

It's funny, because I actually thought Mad Max was the most enjoyable film I have seen in the last five years in the cinema. An absolute pleasure to watch on a big screen.

After the first half, I genuinely felt they was no way they were going to keep me as enthralled in the second half becuase they would have to begin rehashing what had already happened. Nope! Not even close. Balls to the walls for another solid hour.

This deserves to be seen in the cinema. After finding Avengers 2 a pile of meh, I was even thinking that cinema-worthy blockbusters were becoming an engangered species.

10/10

BuilderPlumber

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that people fail to realise that Max is a phantom, he's a legend whose exploits are told around camp fire. He is not flesh and blood, he can take on overwhelming odds and always come out on top, which is brilliantly showcased in the film when he disappears into the night to take out the pursuers. We don't see how it went down, just a dis-shelved Max returning with an array of weapons.

I think this is certainly the theme of films 2, 3 and 4. The Feral Kid told the story in the second, Savannah in the third and Max himself in the fourth.

.ak wrote: »

The main character in all the Mad Max movies was Australia/the dead world, it's never been about Max. This movie is just another journey on it, and it really highlights that. Furiosa is the main character imo, and I have nothing wrong about that. Why setup more character building for Max when that's already been done in the past 3 movies?

Max is the main character (and jointly with Furiosa in the new film) but yes the post apocalyptic Australia is the main character and how people adapt to it. That's what will make the back stories for the good (Max, Furiosa, Nux) and bad (Immortan Joe) characters very interesting.

pixelburp

Aside from anything else, 'cam' viewings are nothing less than a massive insult to the very craft of cinema; it undermines the hard work of all those on a production team in constructing a specific audio/visual landscape, no matter how throwaway the final material might be. To suggest that the sensory experience of film itself, often so carefully constructed that our very subconscious processes a narrative so our eyes don't have to, is the same watched through a blurry & muddled camera recording as it would be on-screen in its fully glory, is a nonsense tbh.

It's like listening to a pop-song through a tin-can & string: oh sure, you can claim you can make out the words and rhythm perfectly fine thank you very much, but you really aren't.

I think that Lynch's comments apply to cam rips aswell as watching a film on a fucking phone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcNLEwf2pOw

BuilderPlumber

FutureGuy wrote: »

My general opinion is that some people will never EVER be pleased. I do not argue with such people. One of my friends on facebook has not ranked a film higher than "enjoyable fare" over the last five years.

It's funny, because I actually thought Mad Max was the most enjoyable film I have seen in the last five years in the cinema. An absolute pleasure to watch on a big screen.

After the first half, I genuinely felt they was no way they were going to keep me as enthralled in the second half becuase they would have to begin rehashing what had already happened. Nope! Not even close. Balls to the walls for another solid hour.

This deserves to be seen in the cinema. After finding Avengers 2 a pile of meh, I was even thinking that cinema-worthy blockbusters were becoming an engangered species.

10/10

I agree. Good films and especially revisits to classic films from other decades are few and far between. But this is clearly one. After the disappointing updates of Robocop, Rambo (unfortunately, very like the second and third films from its original trio), Indiana Jones, Miami Vice and Total Recall, one could be very much forgiven for thinking 'yet another poor remake of 1980s fare'. Perhaps, it was feared it would end up more like the many poor Mad Max copycat films like Waterword and The Postman than Mad Max. Perhaps, it was feared it would be like Terminator Salvation, an ok film but a disappointment compared to what went before. But no. Fury Road is every bit as good as the originals plus adds more elements not explored in the original films. It does not disappoint and has set the bar for successful revisits to familiar characters.

Outkast_IRE

I thought this was pretty cool,

A before and after of each shot, to be honest i did not realise just how much special effects went into some of the shots.

I know a lot of work was done with real visual effects but its interesting to see the comparison.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/movies/heres-what-mad-max-looks-like-without-special-effects/

nc19

.ak wrote: »

Not sure how you can say it was shiny, the attention to detail to making the world look gritty?

I meant the movie looked all shiny and fancy compared to the originals. As already stated, I believe this movie suffered from a large budget.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, saying there is no difference between as crappy cam rip and the cinema projection is amongst the dumbest things I have ever seen.....

I didn't say that:rolleyes: obviously there is a visual difference but it doesn't inform my opinion.

timetogo wrote: »

+100
I've watched perfect quality movies on an airplane and thought they were crap because of the display format, only to watch them years later and think they weren't that bad. I don't bother with cams at all now as the crappy quality always detracts hugely from the film for me.

and ive watched movies on planes, phones, tablets, pcs and laptops and thought some were crap, great amazing......

FutureGuy wrote: »

After finding Avengers 2 a pile of meh, I was even thinking that cinema-worthy blockbusters were becoming an engangered species.

I watched a downloaded copy of Avengers on my phone and have the same opinion as you - meh!......but this opinion is ok because you share it????




people, ive literally watched 1000's of movies through various rips, cams, screeners etc over the years. Some ive loved, some not so much!

if my opinion of a movie after watching it on my laptop is that it is crap then Im an idiot but if my opinion is that its great then what???

I watched most of the Harry Potters at home cos no one would go with me to the cinema. Loved all of them!! I watched Skyfall on my laptop, loved it. I watched a bad copy of TMNT on my laptop, loved it!!!

I have an opinion, it might not be the same as yours.....shock horror

BMMachine

you sure do have an opinion.

My opinion is that Onions are terrible and shouldnt be used in anything ever

johnny_ultimate

Back on topic please folks, keep the discussion to Fury Road, thanks.

BMMachine

done and done:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danieldalton/shiny-and-chrome#.sh2W30dkY
Some concept art of the movie dating back to the 90s. Looks unbelievable

.ak

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I thought this was pretty cool,

A before and after of each shot, to be honest i did not realise just how much special effects went into some of the shots.

I know a lot of work was done with real visual effects but its interesting to see the comparison.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/movies/heres-what-mad-max-looks-like-without-special-effects/

What's lovely about it though is the focal point in all of those shots are real; real cars, real sand, real actors, etc. It's just some really clever layer work to build up the image and the setting. Very clever all together and a great way of keeping the realistic touch.

Shandashey

What an amazing ride. Guitar lad and his drummers STOLE THE SHOW

Slydice

Watched it. Great film.


... WITNESS ME!

BMMachine

Slydice wrote: »

Watched it. Great film.


... WITNESS ME!

Mediocre!

Reggie.

BMMachine wrote: »

Mediocre!

SHINEY AND CHROME

orubiru

nc19 wrote: »

I meant the movie looked all shiny and fancy compared to the originals. As already stated, I believe this movie suffered from a large budget.

obviously there is a visual difference but it doesn't inform my opinion.

This is a contradiction, no?

Fury Road looks all shiny and fancy compared to the originals and suffers because of it's budget BUT your opinion on a movie is not informed by the visuals. How does that work?

George Miller, and most directors, would create these movies with the intention that they would be watched on a cinema screen. Nobody is directing movies thinking "now, I want it to be just as watchable on an iphone or a downloaded cam version".

The visuals are a major component in Fury Road. The idea that there shouldn't be a difference between watching the movie in a cinema and watching an illegal cam download on your iphone is ridiculous.

BuilderPlumber

orubiru wrote: »

This is a contradiction, no?

Fury Road looks all shiny and fancy compared to the originals and suffers because of it's budget BUT your opinion on a movie is not informed by the visuals. How does that work?

George Miller, and most directors, would create these movies with the intention that they would be watched on a cinema screen. Nobody is directing movies thinking "now, I want it to be just as watchable on an iphone or a downloaded cam version".

The visuals are a major component in Fury Road. The idea that there shouldn't be a difference between watching the movie in a cinema and watching an illegal cam download on your iphone is ridiculous.

Each film in any series has to be taken in its context. And the first film in any series will always have a much lower budget than its sequels often. Films such as Mad Max 1979, Dr No, etc. were made at a time when the series they started was not as sure as what we learned later. So, they had limited budgets compared to what we see later.

For most, Mad Max 2 is considered the greatest action movie of its type and Fury Road captures the feel of this without copying it. The affects of the post war world here is much more profound than what we see in Mad Max 2 or the underrated Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. We see disease and poverty in a way we are not shown in the earlier series. For a big budget film, it is edgy, tense and exciting - obviously well directed and all the lead actors shine throughout. This is to post-apocalypse films what Casino Royale 2006 was to the Bond movies. While there had been many Bond films, they had got farcical by the last 2 Brosnan movies. We have had no Mad Max at all but too many very poor ripoffs of it such as Steel Dawn, Cyborg, Waterworld, The Postman, etc. between Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road. FR shows what post apocalypse films should be.

And speaking of Bond movies: you notice all the Mad Max style moments in Quantum of Solace. There is a Thunderdome-style fight, the desert setting, the chases, the plot about hoarding water and most notable of all the Mad Max style ending where Bond drives the bad guy out into the desert and hands him a tin of oil and drives away (very like Max typing Johnny the Boy to the wrecked care, lighting a fuel detonator and handing him a hacksaw and then driving away). Daniel Craig could be a good Max too and Tom Hardy would be a good Bond.

BMMachine

agree with everything except Daniel Craig as Max. That would be shockingly bad

Wedwood

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I didn't expect much but it was actually pretty good as an action movie, with some original and funny pieces as well.

The action was throughout and the two hours flew along.

HalloweenJack

Just got back from seeing this and loved it.

I'm not a big fan of action films but went for this on the back of the reviews it's been getting. It was incredible. More than anything, the vivid visual factor was like a slap in the face.

It was all action, even when I thought there might be a lull,

when Furiosa finds out her home doesn't exist anymore

, it just sets itself up for a mind-blowing final battle.

I'd say it was pretty much the perfect action film.

nc19

orubiru wrote:

......on an iphone......

How dare you!

I am many things but an iPhone wank3r is not one of them

.ak

HalloweenJack wrote: »

Just got back from seeing this and loved it.

I'm not a big fan of action films but went for this on the back of the reviews it's been getting. It was incredible. More than anything, the vivid visual factor was like a slap in the face.

It was all action, even when I thought there might be a lull,

when Furiosa finds out her home doesn't exist anymore

, it just sets itself up for a mind-blowing final battle.

I'd say it was pretty much the perfect action film.

Speaking of which, that moment in the spoiler tags, probably the best couple of shots in the movie. I was already a fan of the movie after the opening sequence but that scene made me realize I was watching something special, where the cinematography and art direction were just as (if not more) important as the plot and dialogue.

rob316

What a MOVIE, what a lovely MOVIE! :D

pixelburp

So looks like box office takings have broken the $300 million mark, sitting currently at ~$315 million. With home releases still to come as well. I think that should classify Fury Road as an unqualified commercial and critical success; surely now Miller's chatted about sequel will get the green light. Hopefully so.

Reggie.

pixelburp wrote: »

So looks like box office takings have broken the $300 million mark, sitting currently at ~$315 million. With home releases still to come as well. I think that should classify Fury Road as an unqualified commercial and critical success; surely now Miller's chatted about sequel will get the green light. Hopefully so.

Hopefully if it's done that we'll have a sequel

Looper007

pixelburp wrote: »

So looks like box office takings have broken the $300 million mark, sitting currently at ~$315 million. With home releases still to come as well. I think that should classify Fury Road as an unqualified commercial and critical success; surely now Miller's chatted about sequel will get the green light. Hopefully so.

Remember China and Japan, big markets yet to have the film released there.