Mad Max: Fury Road

2Mad2BeMad

have to say,
I loved every minute of it

the only thing I hated
was tom hardy
not that he didnt suit the character
I love him in other films, but he barely spoke a full sentence at times, I wonder how many pages it took to write his lines :L
but loved it hope theirs another one

had to really convince my girlfriend to go see it with me as well :L she hates all that kind of stuff
but she ended up liking it as well

e_e

Mickeroo wrote: »

Other criticisms aside, I really can't fathom the "no plot or character development" arguments, the fact both were there in spades was one of the best things about the film for me.

Yep. Not to mention that a great film can have neither.

Besides can anyone name me a blockbuster from the last... oh 20 years that has genuinely dynamic, complex and well-rounded characters? I'd say this film is honestly top of the pile in that regard, there's a subtlety and economy to the visuals here that tell you more than characters just talking at you between action scenes. Like

Immorten Joe being quite a feeble and scrawny man underneath his menacing mask and armor, a cult leader who has misled his own followers to worship him. Nux's transformation after finally being in a group that treats him as an equal (not just a cog in Joe's machine). Max being a caged animal in the first third, lost in his own rage until he is given something to fight for. Not to mention the way Furiosa's disability doesn't even become apparent until about 40 minutes in and we fully realize her strength and determination.

There is so much there in terms of character, plot and theme if you want to find it.

e_e

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Looks like its run has ended today, from a quick check of the cinema websites. Anyone know for sure? I'll be raging if it is as I meant to watch it again but kept putting it off

http://lighthouse.admit-one.eu/?p=details&eventCode=17229
http://www.imdb.com/showtimes/title/tt1392190?date=2015-07-02&ref_=tt_wbr_sh

johnny_ultimate

'Plot' is the downfall of many (most?) modern blockbusters. They get so wrapped up in the literal mechanics of what is happening, they often forget to make films that are actually about anything (hence the rise of the cursed brand of 'nitpick criticism'). For me, it's what lets films like The Avengers: AoU, Jurassic World or Pacific Rim down - I pick those films because they're ones that seem to actively ignore their own inherent themes as they disappear down a plot rabbithole. Look at Mad Max: Fury Road, or something like The Raid (and, indeed, the stark contrast between that film and its plot-heavy sequel) and there's IMO something to be celebrated about their unapologetic simplicity. Which is not to be confused with being simplistic, because I don't believe MM: FR is simplistic. Rather it's their razor sharp focus, their ability to distill everything down to something that is both narratively serviceable and cinematically satisfying.

When it comes to 'busy' scripts, it's more difficult for the director to focus on what really matters, which is the form. It's a trap I think someone like Christopher Nolan has fallen into with his more recent films - there's so much stuff happening, that the film can often feel like it's almost held together with duct tape. And he's one of the few who can actually just about pull it off! With Fury Road, there's so much more room for form, to get straight to the images and sounds that ultimately linger with us longer and more potently than the actual plot. It's why we rewatch films at all. It's something sadly lacking in the modern blockbuster sphere, where plot overpowers form to a frequently dispiriting degree.

What is a minor miracle is that there is something narratively substantial there nonetheless in Fury Road. Forget the plot, it's basically 'there and back again' with some obstacles in the way. There are relationships and characters that develop in meaningful, effective ways. Tales are told through grunts and glances as much as they are through dialogue. Feminist themes emerge not through polemics, but through actions and images. And the themes that have driven the franchise since its first outing - vengeance and survival - remain present in smartly streamlined form. Obviously if you're looking for films that probe the complexities of the human condition with more nuance, there are other, better places to look. But Fury Road knows what it is, and does it exceedingly well - and, unlike most of the endless list of films that are full of narrative twists, turns and complications, it manages to be coherently about something all the while.

Fysh

Brian? wrote: »

That's a very low bar for character development. What about the cartoon bad guys? They could have done with being more than 1D.

I found the entire plot to be far too predictable too.

This film was a prime example of over use of action.

It's a hyper-camp action film, in a period where most action films have given up on any kind of characterisation that isn't build on horribly-scripted clichés. So for me an economical amount of well-executed characterisation is better than more badly executed characterisation. This goes as much for the villains of the piece as the heroes - we find out everything we need to know about Immortan Joe and his all ies during the film. That they aren't complex, subtle and multi-layered villains isn't a failing, it's just down to the types of characters they are. Personally I think the way they were played worked well - to quote Garth Ennis "I don't want any of that 'He's not all bad' crap here"

rockatansky

Brian? wrote: »

I found the entire plot to be far too predictable too.
.

I can tell you the plot of every single Mad Max film that will be made after this one. It's not exactly going to be a suprise:

- Max start off as a loner travelling the waste land trying to avoid all contact with people.
- Somehow against his wishes he ends up getting involved with some nasty elements.
- Other nice people are at the mercy of these nasty elements.
- Max tries not to help these people, he justs wants to be left alone, but his conscience get the better of him.
- Max saves the day.
- Fast Crazy Cars.
- Lots of Loud bangs and explosions mixed in with all of the above.
- Max goes back to being a loner travelling the waste land.
- End Credits

Brian? wrote: »

This film was a prime example of over use of action.

Thankfully you are completely wrong on this point.

BuilderPlumber

rockatansky wrote: »

I can tell you the plot of every single Mad Max film that will be made after this one. It's not exactly going to be a suprise:

- Max start off as a loner travelling the waste land trying to avoid all contact with people.
- Somehow against his wishes he ends up getting involved with some nasty elements.
- Other nice people are at the mercy of these nasty elements.
- Max tries not to help these people, he justs wants to be left alone, but his conscience get the better of him.
- Max saves the day.
- Fast Crazy Cars.
- Lots of Loud bangs and explosions mixed in with all of the above.
- Max goes back to being a loner travelling the waste land.
- End Credits

The above sums up the plot for Mad Max 2, Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road 100%. The first Mad Max is a different film but introduces us to why Max is the man he is.

Without the above elements, it would not be a Mad Max film. Just like a Bond film should be focused on a villain threatens the world in some way unless they get what they want, Bond is assigned to stop them, and goes to exotic locations along the way and gets involved in chases, shootouts and fights until he saves the day (and, at least in earlier ones, falls in love along the way).

What would be interesting would be a Mad Max prequel though. Set before the first film even with perhaps the Nightrider as a main villain and set in an almost normal world? Perhaps have a cops v drug dealing bikers story intertwined with talk about, retelling at the start by Max and newsflashes on TV about an impending war, a spiraling out of control economic breakdown, etc. As long as they don't turn it into Mad Max: The Frontline, it would be cool!

BoJack Horseman

Did the chrome spray have a physical purpose or was it a tokenistic thing before the war-boys went on their 'jourmey'?

Looper007

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

the only thing I hated
was tom hardy

I thought Hardy bought his own thing to the Max character and he carried it off brilliantly especially the slightly crazy tone to him. I think anyone in that role was screwed in the first place cause it's not Mel Gibson. People have to understand Mel was never in the running to star in this film as he was too old, Heath Ledger was first choice but sadly he passed. But I have no complaints with Hardy he pulled off the action star perfectly.

Looper007

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Did the chrome spray have a physical purpose or was it a tokenistic thing before the war-boys went on their 'jourmey'?

I thought it was like Speed, a drug that gives you a boost and has your senses on alert and made death pass quicker. Seen as many of the War Boy's were weak (Nux using Max as the blood bag) that's what I assume it was.

BuilderPlumber

Looper007 wrote: »

Over Use of Action??? it's a action blockbuster, what are you expecting a discussion on the weather. This film was anything but predictable and the characters don't need tons and tons of backstory that bog down the action, they did enough that got you invested in them. Furoisa and Nux are two of the most interesting characters of the year and Joe one of the most memorable Villains.

I have heard people in general say the strangest things about movies and TV shows for example:

Mad Max, James Bond, Mission Impossible = overuse of action.
Love/Hate = too much violence and drug usage.

One could go on and on. Clearly, that is the main theme of these!! If one does not want action, violence, etc., what something like Free Willy or Mary Poppins.

There's lots of character development in all the Mad Max films incl. Fury Road but a certain air of mystery too that makes the characters so interesting. Who was Humungus? What motivated the Toecutter? Why does Goose hate the bikers personally? What role did Joe have in the wars? What was Furiosa's backstory? Or Aunty's? How did Bartertown come to be? What became of Captain Walker? What was the water war (and no it is not AAA v Irish Water!!!) and who fought the oil war? What fuel did the pilot in Beyond Thunderdome use? What were the people in the community in Mad Max 2 before they came here? What became of all the characters in the first film? Did Johnny the Boy survive or die?

rockatansky

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

What would be interesting would be a Mad Max prequel though. Set before the first film even with perhaps the Nightrider as a main villain and set in an almost normal world? Perhaps have a cops v drug dealing bikers story intertwined with talk about, retelling at the start by Max and newsflashes on TV about an impending war, a spiraling out of control economic breakdown, etc. As long as they don't turn it into Mad Max: The Frontline, it would be cool!

Absolutely yes it would be very cool! And bring back Steve Bisley!

rockatansky

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Why does Goose hate the bikers personally?

I thought it was his like for women (the Singer, the Girl on the Side Car Motorbike) and then he comes across the girl, Johnny the boy and the wrecked Impala!

MisterAnarchy

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I have heard people in general say the strangest things about movies and TV shows for example:

Mad Max, James Bond, Mission Impossible = overuse of action.
Love/Hate = too much violence and drug usage.

One could go on and on. Clearly, that is the main theme of these!! If one does not want action, violence, etc., what something like Free Willy or Mary Poppins.

I wouldnt categorise James Bond or Mission Impossible films with Fury Road,they have alot of action ,yes but the action scenes vary and they are spaced out in the running time,its not all one huge action scene which was the case in Fury Road.

Dont get me wrong ,I like action in films ,and I like dark violent films but its very hard to make a film which is non stop action and making it last 2 hours is even harder.

Some of my favourite action films have had simplistic plots.
Predator,Hard Boiled,Robocop,Die Hard,First Blood,Mad Max 2,A Bittersweet Life,
Most of these films are pretty violent too.

Besides can anyone name me a blockbuster from the last... oh 20 years that has genuinely dynamic, complex and well-rounded characters? I'd say this film is honestly top of the pile in that regard, there's a subtlety and economy to the visuals here that tell you more than characters just talking at you between action scenes.

I honestly don't know how you can think the characters are complex and well rounded ,they all seemed pretty one dimensional to me.
The plot was weaker than a wet paper bag.
I just don't understand what's so hype-worthy about endless car chases and explosions.

BuilderPlumber

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I have heard people in general say the strangest things about movies and TV shows for example:

Mad Max, James Bond, Mission Impossible = overuse of action.
Love/Hate = too much violence and drug usage.

One could go on and on. Clearly, that is the main theme of these!! If one does not want action, violence, etc., what something like Free Willy or Mary Poppins.

There's lots of character development in all the Mad Max films incl. Fury Road but a certain air of mystery too that makes the characters so interesting. Who was Humungus? What motivated the Toecutter? Why does Goose hate the bikers personally? What role did Joe have in the wars? What was Furiosa's backstory? Or Aunty's? How did Bartertown come to be? What became of Captain Walker? What was the water war (and no it is not AAA v Irish Water!!!) and who fought the oil war? What fuel did the pilot in Beyond Thunderdome use? What were the people in the community in Mad Max 2 before they came here? What became of all the characters in the first film? Did Johnny the Boy survive or die?

Agree, Not everyone wants to be spoon fed every minute detail. There's enough there for subtle character development which adds to the mystery of the world. The amount of nit-picking going on in the last few pages with this movie is a bit farcical to be honest.

TinCool

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

It was just one big long truck chase .

And your point being ? Great fun popcorn movie. What about Speilbergs classic Duel ? One big long truck chases ftw.

e_e

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I honestly don't know how you can think the characters are complex and well rounded ,they all seemed pretty one dimensional to me.

I didn't say they were, however in the context of blockbuster cinema they are particularly well-defined and perfectly serve the film's purpose. Fury Road is definitely a case where less is more in the character context.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The plot was weaker than a wet paper bag.

Really as a film audience we need to get over this restrictive idea that plot is the be all and end all of film. As with the best cinema Fury Road is not about the plot, it's about what's done with it, what the ideas underneath are and how they are presented visually. It's also crucially about the kinetic excitement of the film making on show, which is nothing to be sniffed at even if the film was lacking in other departments (which I fundamentally don't think it is).

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I just don't understand what's so hype-worthy about endless car chases and explosions.

You can reductively sum up any movie this way. "That 2001 A Space Odyssey, it's just shots of stuff floating in space for 2 hours." It's nothing to do with Fury Road's quality as a piece of cinema, especially since (once again) there are many many great films where arguably even less takes place.

There's a through-line about a lot of the complaints against this movie I'm seeing and I think it comes down to one thing, they don't like the structure of the film as it disallows the kind of information dump as way of plot, theme and character development you see in most big budget movies. ...and really that is the stuff that leads to lazy and conservative film making, not the unique vision you see here.

Just be thankful you didn't get 5 minutes of scrolling expository text at the beginning like a Dune or Phantom Menace.

ThisRegard

TinCool wrote: »

And your point being ? Great fun popcorn movie. What about Speilbergs classic Duel ? One big long truck chases ftw.

Awesome film by the way, it used to be a Sunday afternoon filler on one of the stations years ago, watched it every time it was on.

Brian?

Fysh wrote: »

It's a hyper-camp action film, in a period where most action films have given up on any kind of characterisation that isn't build on horribly-scripted clichés. So for me an economical amount of well-executed characterisation is better than more badly executed characterisation. This goes as much for the villains of the piece as the heroes - we find out everything we need to know about Immortan Joe and his all ies during the film. That they aren't complex, subtle and multi-layered villains isn't a failing, it's just down to the types of characters they are. Personally I think the way they were played worked well - to quote Garth Ennis "I don't want any of that 'He's not all bad' crap here"

I'm not saying a huge amount of character development was needed. I was merely rebutting the idea that it was there in spades as some people seem to think. A little more would have been good.

I think my main issue with the film was I was simply disappointed in it. It wasn't anywhere near the film any of the 3 Mad Max films were. Even Mad Max 3 was streets ahead.

I honestly think it was a mistake to have Tom Hardy play Max. The central character didn't actually need to be the original Max, it had no bearing on the film at all.

BMMachine

Brian? wrote: »

I think my main issue with the film was I was simply disappointed in it. It wasn't anywhere near the film any of the 3 Mad Max films were. Even Mad Max 3 was streets ahead.

thats the beauty about opinions. you can have one, but they only thing that gives them substance is the weight behind them, how much they actually mean. and in this instance, the weight behind it is that of a feather. so yeah, say all that and believe in it and whatnot, it means absolutely f and a in the long run though as its backed by bullcrap

oh and if you are going by the first 3 films you couldnt find a bigger fan than me. if what I have quoted is something you hold true than your taste in films and the opinion you have of other movies is extremely short sighted and you are easily distracted. If Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome holds value to you as a film and you consider it better than fury road, then you have awful taste. I know I may look like an arsehole for being that blunt but whatever, Jurassic Park is making bank and Michael Bay makes so much money. People have crap taste and wouldnt know something good if it drove a 30 ton nitro powered war rig up their arse but ya know, opinions...

bucketybuck

Brian? wrote: »

It wasn't anywhere near the film any of the 3 Mad Max films were. Even Mad Max 3 was streets ahead.

I don't believe this comment is serious.

Brian?

BMMachine wrote: »

thats the beauty about opinions. you can have one, but they only thing that gives them substance is the weight behind them, how much they actually mean. and in this instance, the weight behind it is that of a feather. so yeah, say all that and believe in it and whatnot, it means absolutely f and a in the long run though as its backed by bullcrap

oh and if you are going by the first 3 films you couldnt find a bigger fan than me. if what I have quoted is something you hold true than your taste in films and the opinion you have of other movies is extremely short sighted and you are easily distracted. If Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome holds value to you as a film and you consider it better than fury road, then you have awful taste. I know I may look like an arsehole for being that blunt but whatever, Jurassic Park is making bank and Michael Bay makes so much money. People have crap taste and wouldnt know something good if it drove a 30 ton nitro powered war rig up their arse but ya know, opinions...

I find this hilarious. I wouldn't go to see Jurassic Park in a fit and can't name a Michael Bay film I'd watch if it was on telly.

If enjoying Fury Road is your measurement of taste, you'll be well served by Hollywood. They destroyed Terminator with T3 and salvation, they destroyed Predator with AvP and now they've destroyed Mad Max.

Brian?

bucketybuck wrote: »

I don't believe this comment is serious.

It's 100% serious. I saw the Mad Max sequels as they were released, so they probably mean a lot more to me than most people.

Mickeroo

Brian? wrote: »

I find this hilarious. I wouldn't go to see Jurassic Park in a fit and can't name a Michael Bay film I'd watch if it was on telly.

If enjoying Fury Road is your measurement of taste, you'll be well served by Hollywood. They destroyed Terminator with T3 and salvation, they destroyed Predator with AvP and now they've destroyed Mad Max.

Don't blame Hollywood for destroying mad max blame the guy who made the original movies, because this was all him.

Sad Professor

Can we keep it friendly please, folks. No attacks on people’s opinions or tastes. It can quickly spiral out of control, ruining discussion for everyone else. The charter has a section about this, read it if you are confused or pm one of us, thanks.

Brian?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Don't blame Hollywood for destroying mad max blame the guy who made the original movies, because this was all him.

Mad Max 2 would never be made today. I don't think Terminator would have been either. This is down to the studios.

Mickeroo

Brian? wrote: »

Mad Max 2 would never be made today. I don't think Terminator would have been either. This is down to the studios.

Do you think the studio interfered much with Fury Road? It's much too similar to the older movies for that to be the case imo. I wouldn't have expected a film like fury road to be made today until I saw it.

Sad Professor

There was nothing typical about the production of Fury Road. Miller didn’t even have a written script, just storyboards. Which explains the graphic novel-esque emphasis on visual storytelling over plot and dialogue. Miller was always a visual formalist, but Fury Road seems more purely cinematic than any of the previous Max films, albeit at the price of traditional live action drama. This is Miller’s Miami Vice. I love it but I understand why others don’t.

Ipso

Mickeroo wrote: »

Do you think the studio interfered much with Fury Road? It's much too similar to the older movies for that to be the case imo. I wouldn't have expected a film like fury road to be made today until I saw it.

Weren't there rumours of re-shoots and studio reps going to the location to see what was going on?
The next time I expect to see a film like Fury Road is when the sequel comes out.

Brian?

Mickeroo wrote: »

Do you think the studio interfered much with Fury Road? It's much too similar to the older movies for that to be the case imo. I wouldn't have expected a film like fury road to be made today until I saw it.

I don't see the film as an outlier the way Mad Max 1&2 were. It had big name actors attached and over long action sequences. It's slightly grittier than most, but fairly formulaic.

Added to this, it's a reboot of a famous series. Not exactly a gamble.