Mad Max 4 - Fury Road
Discussion
The misses took me to see this with her and not the other way around!
I've never seen the previous Mad Max films, not sure why just hadn't.
I found a few bits of the film hilarious like the guitar player and when the nitrous or whatever was being sprayed into the engine bay.
What was the silver stuff they sprayed onto their faces?
The way see this film, like a version of Expendables but better, mindless film to watch with pure action with no need to engage your brain
Did think I heard Bane talking a few times, might eventually watch the old films too
I've never seen the previous Mad Max films, not sure why just hadn't.
I found a few bits of the film hilarious like the guitar player and when the nitrous or whatever was being sprayed into the engine bay.
What was the silver stuff they sprayed onto their faces?
The way see this film, like a version of Expendables but better, mindless film to watch with pure action with no need to engage your brain
Did think I heard Bane talking a few times, might eventually watch the old films too
g4ry13 said:
Saw this last night. They should have called it 'Mindless Max.'
Poor dialogue, very little plot, no character development and after an hour or so I was feeling pretty bored with the whole thing. I could tell I wasn't the only one as people in the cinema seemed to be walking in and out during the film and i've never experienced that before.
It's got the Mad Max brand name behind it so people look at this with rose-tinted specs and fawn over it. The reviews seem to be very good and it's rather misleading because imo the film's tosh.
On the plus side, the car engines sounded nice and there was a few cool scenes.
I wish I could get my money back for the ticket, or had my cerebral cortex temporarily removed to enjoy watching this film. Quite possibly the worst film i've ever paid money to see.
As your review echoes the comments of almost every review I've read (only in a negative way) I can't work out why you would have bothered to pay to see the film?Poor dialogue, very little plot, no character development and after an hour or so I was feeling pretty bored with the whole thing. I could tell I wasn't the only one as people in the cinema seemed to be walking in and out during the film and i've never experienced that before.
It's got the Mad Max brand name behind it so people look at this with rose-tinted specs and fawn over it. The reviews seem to be very good and it's rather misleading because imo the film's tosh.
On the plus side, the car engines sounded nice and there was a few cool scenes.
I wish I could get my money back for the ticket, or had my cerebral cortex temporarily removed to enjoy watching this film. Quite possibly the worst film i've ever paid money to see.
Also, the films is written and directed by the same guy as did the original so I'd say it has more than the 'brand name' behind it TBH.
SWoll said:
g4ry13 said:
Saw this last night. They should have called it 'Mindless Max.'
Poor dialogue, very little plot, no character development and after an hour or so I was feeling pretty bored with the whole thing. I could tell I wasn't the only one as people in the cinema seemed to be walking in and out during the film and i've never experienced that before.
It's got the Mad Max brand name behind it so people look at this with rose-tinted specs and fawn over it. The reviews seem to be very good and it's rather misleading because imo the film's tosh.
On the plus side, the car engines sounded nice and there was a few cool scenes.
I wish I could get my money back for the ticket, or had my cerebral cortex temporarily removed to enjoy watching this film. Quite possibly the worst film i've ever paid money to see.
As your review echoes the comments of almost every review I've read (only in a negative way) I can't work out why you would have bothered to pay to see the film?Poor dialogue, very little plot, no character development and after an hour or so I was feeling pretty bored with the whole thing. I could tell I wasn't the only one as people in the cinema seemed to be walking in and out during the film and i've never experienced that before.
It's got the Mad Max brand name behind it so people look at this with rose-tinted specs and fawn over it. The reviews seem to be very good and it's rather misleading because imo the film's tosh.
On the plus side, the car engines sounded nice and there was a few cool scenes.
I wish I could get my money back for the ticket, or had my cerebral cortex temporarily removed to enjoy watching this film. Quite possibly the worst film i've ever paid money to see.
Also, the films is written and directed by the same guy as did the original so I'd say it has more than the 'brand name' behind it TBH.
t that was presented instead. Had I read the negative reviews I wouldn't have put myself through that unless I had a frontal lobotomy. http://io9.com/do-you-realize-mad-max-fury-road-is...
I'm on the "it's brilliant" side. This film could have happened any time in the last 20 years, as a Mel Gibson film, have a different director, be an animated film, or a total CGI fest. It isn't any of those things and it's great.
I'm on the "it's brilliant" side. This film could have happened any time in the last 20 years, as a Mel Gibson film, have a different director, be an animated film, or a total CGI fest. It isn't any of those things and it's great.
Really polorising this one...
Saw it last night and loved it. Wasn't expecting 'Dead Poet's Society' or the ilk so got what I paid for. Lots of great set pieces, costume design and awesome cars (anyone spend time thinking, what car did that start out as??).
Only two things annoyed me: again, the interceptor, with it's Weiand Supercharger cranking, gets caught by dune buggies AND it gets bloody destroyed again!!
Anyhow, I think you can sum up in first 3 minutes whether you like it or not, if you cheer when Miller shows a homage to this shot:
as max heads down the slope..
Oh, I also think Mel Gibson would have been better than Tom, the whole 'aging yet tough as old boots' angle would have played out pretty well.
Saw it last night and loved it. Wasn't expecting 'Dead Poet's Society' or the ilk so got what I paid for. Lots of great set pieces, costume design and awesome cars (anyone spend time thinking, what car did that start out as??).
Only two things annoyed me: again, the interceptor, with it's Weiand Supercharger cranking, gets caught by dune buggies AND it gets bloody destroyed again!!
Anyhow, I think you can sum up in first 3 minutes whether you like it or not, if you cheer when Miller shows a homage to this shot:
as max heads down the slope..
Oh, I also think Mel Gibson would have been better than Tom, the whole 'aging yet tough as old boots' angle would have played out pretty well.
Edited by robm3 on Tuesday 26th May 22:30
Anyhow, this is Pistonheads, let's celebrate the evolution of one of the toughest cars (if not the toughest and meanest) cars in film history....
It all started here.. "last of the V8's Max!!"
And even with Max down...
The car delivered justice
Then it all went apocalyptic...
And Max and the car looked older, dirty and gritty:
And nitro beat supercharger..booooo!
But now resurrection:
Again I say, surely a contender for the toughest car in movie history....
It all started here.. "last of the V8's Max!!"
And even with Max down...
The car delivered justice
Then it all went apocalyptic...
And Max and the car looked older, dirty and gritty:
And nitro beat supercharger..booooo!
But now resurrection:
Again I say, surely a contender for the toughest car in movie history....
Edited by robm3 on Tuesday 26th May 23:49
I re-watched the first two movies during the quiet periods of my past two night shifts, and have to say, despite the dodgy script, the first Mad Max is probably the best from the point of view of a PH'er and cars (latest film excluded, just). Many more rumbling V8's, chases and shots of cars racing down empty roads than The Road Warrior.
One thing I didn't get though from the first is that Max is on the verge of quitting the Main Force Police, so his superiors fund the creation of the Interceptor as a way of making him stay. When he see's it in the underground garage that first time, he and his two mates are very excited about it, and his bosses, who are listening to their conversation on a radio, declare success that Max will be staying on.
Except Max doesn't touch the car until he goes "rogue" at the end. Surely the retention incentive for him should have been given to him straight away?
(From the point of view of the movie though, I'd hazard a guess that the intention was he only takes on the black, scary looking car once he's snapped, losing the last of his humanity and going off for revenge.)
One thing I didn't get though from the first is that Max is on the verge of quitting the Main Force Police, so his superiors fund the creation of the Interceptor as a way of making him stay. When he see's it in the underground garage that first time, he and his two mates are very excited about it, and his bosses, who are listening to their conversation on a radio, declare success that Max will be staying on.
Except Max doesn't touch the car until he goes "rogue" at the end. Surely the retention incentive for him should have been given to him straight away?
(From the point of view of the movie though, I'd hazard a guess that the intention was he only takes on the black, scary looking car once he's snapped, losing the last of his humanity and going off for revenge.)
Edited by Brigand on Wednesday 27th May 05:52
I recall watching the first one after the second...I think....and thinking it was like a different world. Civilisation still seemed to be prevalent though it was on a bit of a slide. When we get to the second one, things have gone tits up, and by the time of the third it's gotten even worse.
Rogue86 said:
I think a lot of you are remembering the originals with rose-tinted specs. The first in particular almost rivals the opening scenes of Commando for cheesiness.
the original was a B-movie on a AUS$50 budget, looks godawful nowbut Fury Road was a loose remake of Mad Max 2 if anything, which was and still is a great movie IMHO
Halb said:
I recall watching the first one after the second...I think....and thinking it was like a different world. Civilisation still seemed to be prevalent though it was on a bit of a slide. When we get to the second one, things have gone tits up, and by the time of the third it's gotten even worse.
Yeah, there's no sign that the world is ending whatsoever in the first, its just in the intro to the second one that we hear there was a big war over oil, and that resulted in a "Post Nuclear" (according to the blurb on the back of my very old DVD copy) world afterwards.Brigand said:
Yeah, there's no sign that the world is ending whatsoever in the first, its just in the intro to the second one that we hear there was a big war over oil, and that resulted in a "Post Nuclear" (according to the blurb on the back of my very old DVD copy) world afterwards.
That bit always struck me as odd - almost every post-apocalyptic scenario in fiction is as a result of nuclear war yet Mad Max made some kind of passing reference to oil-based resource wars which never really explained the apocalypse. I think the "post-nuclear" bit is probably a retcon as I am sure the film itself never explicitly said so (or else it wouldn't have stuck so firmly in my mind). Brigand said:
Halb said:
I recall watching the first one after the second...I think....and thinking it was like a different world. Civilisation still seemed to be prevalent though it was on a bit of a slide. When we get to the second one, things have gone tits up, and by the time of the third it's gotten even worse.
Yeah, there's no sign that the world is ending whatsoever in the first, its just in the intro to the second one that we hear there was a big war over oil, and that resulted in a "Post Nuclear" (according to the blurb on the back of my very old DVD copy) world afterwards.He does pass into a "prohibited zone" towards the end of mad max
motorizer said:
I kind of thought of it as still being relatively civilized on the coast, and completely bonkers inland.
Oh, that would sort-of make sense. The creeping tide of chaos and all that. But it still doesn't account for a post-apocalyptic setting without an actual apocalypse.
A bit of fun theory that doesn't really work out: Tom Hardy's Max is the feral kid grown up, carrying what actual (Mel Gibson) Max did. http://nerdist.com/mad-max-fan-theory-will-make-yo...
Edited by ajprice on Wednesday 27th May 20:41
JonRB said:
motorizer said:
I kind of thought of it as still being relatively civilized on the coast, and completely bonkers inland.
Oh, that would sort-of make sense. The creeping tide of chaos and all that. But it still doesn't account for a post-apocalyptic setting without an actual apocalypse.
The 3rd film...I recall destroyed/hollow skyscraoers though, like a bombed city?
But my point was that a Resource Wars scenario would be a gradual thing; a deterioration. It would be an interesting discussion to have (and probably off topic for this thread) but I think you need a cataclysmic event (an actual apocalypse) for something to be post-apocalyptic. And I'm not being a dick about semantics here, I postulate that as a debating point.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff