Mad Max 4 - Fury Road
Discussion
Dog Star said:
Anyone else feel that it was a shame that the Interceptor only lasted a couple of minutes, bar two or three glimpses later?
For me that car was always the true star of Mad Max 1 & 2 (Mad Max "Thunderdome" does not exist), although acting-wise I think Toecutter and Bubba Zanetti stole the show, and Bruce Spence as the gyro captain in MM2.
Dog and car were the stars of 2 For me that car was always the true star of Mad Max 1 & 2 (Mad Max "Thunderdome" does not exist), although acting-wise I think Toecutter and Bubba Zanetti stole the show, and Bruce Spence as the gyro captain in MM2.
Pesty said:
Dog Star said:
Anyone else feel that it was a shame that the Interceptor only lasted a couple of minutes, bar two or three glimpses later?
For me that car was always the true star of Mad Max 1 & 2 (Mad Max "Thunderdome" does not exist), although acting-wise I think Toecutter and Bubba Zanetti stole the show, and Bruce Spence as the gyro captain in MM2.
Dog and car were the stars of 2 For me that car was always the true star of Mad Max 1 & 2 (Mad Max "Thunderdome" does not exist), although acting-wise I think Toecutter and Bubba Zanetti stole the show, and Bruce Spence as the gyro captain in MM2.
Well, here's what I think.
As a *huge* Mad Max fan, like many others, I've been eagerly awaiting the next offering from George Miller, and I've been excited about it for years.
I saw the first two films when I was very young, and being something of a petrol-head (along with my curious fascination for all things post-apocalyptic), I found them to be absolutely sensational, especially Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior. And back in the day, when we used to hire films on a video tape from a shop, I became very familiar with all the cheap, bargain-bucket low budget flicks from the 80's and 90's that Mad Max 2 clearly inspired, and that the various Directors of such films totally ripped off.
And that's the thing right there - Mad Max:Fury Road felt to me like one of those movies, but with a much bigger budget. It's almost like George Miller has created a pastiche of not just those B-movie 'Mad Max 2' copies, but also of a genre and style which he created.
Of course, I'm well aware that this is supposed to be a re-boot, but in many ways, it's 'Mad Max 2', without the realism or the plot. I also realise that part of the angle here, is storytelling with minimal dialogue and character development. But for me, it just didn't work at all. By the time I was halfway through the film, I really couldn't care less about them, or what was actually going to happen. Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult turned in a couple of great performances. However, Hugh Keays-Byrne, another fabulous actor, and brilliant as Toecutter in the original film, was, frankly, laughable, and more like a pantomime villain. How on earth his character was supposed to be a credible, brutal, post-apocalyptic warlord is absolutely beyond me. He looked like a fat, old man, with bits of vacuum cleaner stuck to his head. Christ, I find Barry Scott from the 'Cillet Bang' adverts far more intimidating. But worst of all, Tom Hardy was a major disappointment. He's one of my favourite actors, and fabulous in everything I've ever seen him in.....except this - and he's *not* Max. Again, it's like 'Wheels Of Fire' (1985) or 'Exterminators of the Year 3000' (1983), whereby someone is playing a 'Happy-Shopper', bargain bucket version of Max Rockatansky. Unfortunately for Mr. Hardy, he clearly had very little to work with, very little to do, really, and his performance was stifled somewhat. And on top of that, he was, to all intents and purposes, a secondary player.
It's a Mad Max film, that doesn't predominantly, and essentially, feature Max himself. And neither, does it feature any explanation, background structure, or plot development regarding Max's past, save for the odd weird 'flashback'/nightmare featuring his dead daughter. But yeah, nice one, George - we're just automatically supposed to know what those flashbacks mean, aren't we, because we all saw the original film.....right?.... despite the fact that this is meant to be a 'reboot' (the lovably trendy word in the film industry, for recycling something that was great the first time around, and turning it into a disappointing pile of rubbish, whilst capitalising on the name and reputation of the film, to get the paying punters in.)
That's one of the biggest problems with this film - Max isn't the main character. This isn't a 'Mad Max' movie. Another crucial piece in the Mad Max world, is his 'Pursuit Special V8 Interceptor'. It's one of *the* defining things of the first two movies, that in this offering, barely means anything, barely gets used, or is a pivotal part of the film. I saw an interview with George Miller, who stated, regarding Max, that 'the Interceptor is back' and 'that's all he has'. Which is precisely how it was in MM2, and yet here, it barely gets a look in. What we *really* wanted to see, was, essentially, Mad Max 1.5 - we wanted to see the transition between the first and second films, as fans.
Now, as a very keen car/vehicle/machinery enthusiast, I can hugely appreciate the incredible time, effort, design, and execution of the vehicles in this film. To get that lot together working in one place, and choreographed in the action sequences is really quite something. But again, it's like a high-budget pastiche of the original idea. Regardless of how well they're designed and put together, the vehicles are just way over done, and utterly preposterous, frankly.
Like I said, this just *isn't* 'Mad Max', I'm afraid. What it *is*, is a film that Cirio H. Santiago and his coequals would have made, if they been given several hundred metric tonnes of cash and the chance to squander it. This film, could have any title, and different character names. There's practically *nothing* that defines it as a Mad Max film. I've watched the original 3 films quite literally, hundreds of times. I've seen this once - and have no desire to see it again. And thus, it's 5/10 from me, because it's average at best, and only the stunt work makes it scrape in, at that.
There's a saying in the UK, which is fairly self explanatory - 'All fur coat, and no knickers'.
I think that perfectly sums it up.
As a *huge* Mad Max fan, like many others, I've been eagerly awaiting the next offering from George Miller, and I've been excited about it for years.
I saw the first two films when I was very young, and being something of a petrol-head (along with my curious fascination for all things post-apocalyptic), I found them to be absolutely sensational, especially Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior. And back in the day, when we used to hire films on a video tape from a shop, I became very familiar with all the cheap, bargain-bucket low budget flicks from the 80's and 90's that Mad Max 2 clearly inspired, and that the various Directors of such films totally ripped off.
And that's the thing right there - Mad Max:Fury Road felt to me like one of those movies, but with a much bigger budget. It's almost like George Miller has created a pastiche of not just those B-movie 'Mad Max 2' copies, but also of a genre and style which he created.
Of course, I'm well aware that this is supposed to be a re-boot, but in many ways, it's 'Mad Max 2', without the realism or the plot. I also realise that part of the angle here, is storytelling with minimal dialogue and character development. But for me, it just didn't work at all. By the time I was halfway through the film, I really couldn't care less about them, or what was actually going to happen. Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult turned in a couple of great performances. However, Hugh Keays-Byrne, another fabulous actor, and brilliant as Toecutter in the original film, was, frankly, laughable, and more like a pantomime villain. How on earth his character was supposed to be a credible, brutal, post-apocalyptic warlord is absolutely beyond me. He looked like a fat, old man, with bits of vacuum cleaner stuck to his head. Christ, I find Barry Scott from the 'Cillet Bang' adverts far more intimidating. But worst of all, Tom Hardy was a major disappointment. He's one of my favourite actors, and fabulous in everything I've ever seen him in.....except this - and he's *not* Max. Again, it's like 'Wheels Of Fire' (1985) or 'Exterminators of the Year 3000' (1983), whereby someone is playing a 'Happy-Shopper', bargain bucket version of Max Rockatansky. Unfortunately for Mr. Hardy, he clearly had very little to work with, very little to do, really, and his performance was stifled somewhat. And on top of that, he was, to all intents and purposes, a secondary player.
It's a Mad Max film, that doesn't predominantly, and essentially, feature Max himself. And neither, does it feature any explanation, background structure, or plot development regarding Max's past, save for the odd weird 'flashback'/nightmare featuring his dead daughter. But yeah, nice one, George - we're just automatically supposed to know what those flashbacks mean, aren't we, because we all saw the original film.....right?.... despite the fact that this is meant to be a 'reboot' (the lovably trendy word in the film industry, for recycling something that was great the first time around, and turning it into a disappointing pile of rubbish, whilst capitalising on the name and reputation of the film, to get the paying punters in.)
That's one of the biggest problems with this film - Max isn't the main character. This isn't a 'Mad Max' movie. Another crucial piece in the Mad Max world, is his 'Pursuit Special V8 Interceptor'. It's one of *the* defining things of the first two movies, that in this offering, barely means anything, barely gets used, or is a pivotal part of the film. I saw an interview with George Miller, who stated, regarding Max, that 'the Interceptor is back' and 'that's all he has'. Which is precisely how it was in MM2, and yet here, it barely gets a look in. What we *really* wanted to see, was, essentially, Mad Max 1.5 - we wanted to see the transition between the first and second films, as fans.
Now, as a very keen car/vehicle/machinery enthusiast, I can hugely appreciate the incredible time, effort, design, and execution of the vehicles in this film. To get that lot together working in one place, and choreographed in the action sequences is really quite something. But again, it's like a high-budget pastiche of the original idea. Regardless of how well they're designed and put together, the vehicles are just way over done, and utterly preposterous, frankly.
Like I said, this just *isn't* 'Mad Max', I'm afraid. What it *is*, is a film that Cirio H. Santiago and his coequals would have made, if they been given several hundred metric tonnes of cash and the chance to squander it. This film, could have any title, and different character names. There's practically *nothing* that defines it as a Mad Max film. I've watched the original 3 films quite literally, hundreds of times. I've seen this once - and have no desire to see it again. And thus, it's 5/10 from me, because it's average at best, and only the stunt work makes it scrape in, at that.
There's a saying in the UK, which is fairly self explanatory - 'All fur coat, and no knickers'.
I think that perfectly sums it up.
Jamie of Lumley said:
Stuff
Nice write up.I agree it sits comfortably with the bargain-bucket knock-offs from the mid-80s. Just with a load of cash injected to it. Also agree on the performance phoned in by the eponymous hero.
I'd quite like a transition film to get from 1 to 2. From the effort though, I don't think we'll get it and I do marvel at what we should expect from the sequel...
Halb said:
Jamie of Lumley said:
Stuff
Nice write up.I agree it sits comfortably with the bargain-bucket knock-offs from the mid-80s. Just with a load of cash injected to it. Also agree on the performance phoned in by the eponymous hero.
I'd quite like a transition film to get from 1 to 2. From the effort though, I don't think we'll get it and I do marvel at what we should expect from the sequel...
SWoll said:
Enjoyed it for what it was but don't think it's the defining moment in cinema history that many people seem to be suggesting it is.
Absolutely.I think this has been one of the most overly hyped movies in recent times, and really doesn't deliver what it promises. But then, I suppose they're also trying to appeal to a generation of people not as au fait with the original flicks as some of us (40 year+) older folk are.
Halb said:
Nice write up.
I agree it sits comfortably with the bargain-bucket knock-offs from the mid-80s. Just with a load of cash injected to it. Also agree on the performance phoned in by the eponymous hero.
I'd quite like a transition film to get from 1 to 2. From the effort though, I don't think we'll get it and I do marvel at what we should expect from the sequel...
Thanks, Halb.I agree it sits comfortably with the bargain-bucket knock-offs from the mid-80s. Just with a load of cash injected to it. Also agree on the performance phoned in by the eponymous hero.
I'd quite like a transition film to get from 1 to 2. From the effort though, I don't think we'll get it and I do marvel at what we should expect from the sequel...
From what I've recently read, Hardy is contracted for another 2 MM films, and the next is already in development, entitled 'Mad Max: The Wasteland'.
Exactly how this is going to fit into the scheme of things (prequel, sequel?...etc) isn't clear, but without doubt, and certainly amongst old-school aficionados, Mad Max 1.5 is what everyone has always wanted to see. I know a guy (from Scotland, of all places) who imported a Falcon, and built an *identical* 'Big Bopper' replica from the first film, and who's heavily involved with all things 'Max', including going out to Oz a number of times for conventions and trips to Broken Hill, and whatnot, with loads of other replica vehicles. He's shared a great many bits and pieces of info with me over the years, which I'll not bore everyone shit-less with, but most interestingly, that George Miller seems to have completely ignored the fans and whole subculture that sprang up around the original three films, and that still continues to this day.
Which is fine - it's his creation, after all, and artistically, he's got every right to do whatever he wants with it.
Thing is though, I'm a bit cynical when I hear expressions like 'reboot' or 're-imagining' being used....especially from the dude who created it in the first place, and even more so when you're dealing with flicks as highly revered as those were.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a cop-out way of not particularly bringing anything new to the table, and not least of which, without actually having a reasonable story to tell.
There is no story with Fury Road. Hmm, actually, there is.....it's just that it's told very badly.
The notion of 'Mad Max 1.5' however, is an interesting and exciting proposition.
Edited by Jamie of Lumley on Saturday 6th June 18:54
Saw it tonight, have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. The cinematography was good, as was the acting, but the story line was lacking and barely explained and the whole thing was basically one big fight scene. Which I guess is great if you are in to that sort of thing. It felt like I was sitting through a lot of action wondering what the hell was going on.
Not for me I'm afraid.
Not for me I'm afraid.
Edited by BorkFactor on Saturday 6th June 23:22
Jamie of Lumley said:
Well, here's what I think.
[Snip]
Hmmm. Aside from 1, Max is arguably never the main protagonist - just someone passing through other people's stories. Both 2 and 3 are narrated from someone else's point of view. And the vehicles are overdone? Well, duh. Just like in 2, oh and 3, for the 2 minutes at the end where there were any. That's the whole point! [Snip]
As for no explanation about his past, well, again, as per 2 and 3 then. Despite what you've said, it's not supposed to be a reboot according to Miller, so hasn't fallen into the reboot formula of going back and explaining everything, which frankly is a good thing IMO.
Also love the way everyone's moaning about the pursuit special. If you think back, it's not actually in 2 much really; a bit at the beginning, nowt in the middle, then gets blown up immediately when he gets it back.
Crazy cars, armoured trucks, crazy apocalyptic punk villains, and car chases across the desert. Not sure what else would define it as a MM movie, apart from Mel Gibson really.
, although the ears were ringing a bit afterwards, it was really very loud in there 
Negative Creep said:
True story - the dog was rescued from a Pound where it was due to be put down the very next day. After filming she was adopted by one of the crew and lived out the rest of her days on their farm
One of the stuntmen I believe. I love that dog.
You could say That movie gave me an idea.
This film really does seem to be polarising views. The film community at large are lauding this movie as being excellent (and I will agree) but the main criticisms, here at least, is that its not really about Max.
Having recently re-watched the original three, the only film that was ever "about" Max was the first. It was showing his descent into "madness" after losing his family and going on a revenge spree on the people who were on a revenge spree against him and the police at large. The next two movies were not really about Max, and there was no real character development of him. Max has just been the lense with which we see the world at large, and Fury Road is no different in this respect. George Millar has said himself there's no real continuity between any of the films, they are all effectively self-contained "Tales from the Badlands", individual stories of things that Max got up to at random points in his wasteland life.
It is a shame the V8 Interceptor was featured so little in Fury Road, but then again, as has been pointed out, it was barely in the first (I've made a comment on this in the past few pages within the context of the movie) and it did feature more in the second film but was wrecked by the third act.
Fury Road was no reboot of the series as each movie is, as I've already said, a self-contained story of Mad Max during a particular event - and I think people need to get their heads around this instead of wondering why there is no direct links between the films and why we know so little about Max.
Having recently re-watched the original three, the only film that was ever "about" Max was the first. It was showing his descent into "madness" after losing his family and going on a revenge spree on the people who were on a revenge spree against him and the police at large. The next two movies were not really about Max, and there was no real character development of him. Max has just been the lense with which we see the world at large, and Fury Road is no different in this respect. George Millar has said himself there's no real continuity between any of the films, they are all effectively self-contained "Tales from the Badlands", individual stories of things that Max got up to at random points in his wasteland life.
It is a shame the V8 Interceptor was featured so little in Fury Road, but then again, as has been pointed out, it was barely in the first (I've made a comment on this in the past few pages within the context of the movie) and it did feature more in the second film but was wrecked by the third act.
Fury Road was no reboot of the series as each movie is, as I've already said, a self-contained story of Mad Max during a particular event - and I think people need to get their heads around this instead of wondering why there is no direct links between the films and why we know so little about Max.
Brigand said:
Having recently re-watched the original three, the only film that was ever "about" Max was the first. It was showing his descent into "madness" after losing his family and going on a revenge spree on the people who were on a revenge spree against him and the police at large. The next two movies were not really about Max, and there was no real character development of him. Max has just been the lense with which we see the world at large, and Fury Road is no different in this respect. George Millar has said himself there's no real continuity between any of the films, they are all effectively self-contained "Tales from the Badlands", individual stories of things that Max got up to at random points in his wasteland life
I've always thought of part 2 as a Western with cars. It's very much in the Man With No Name school of storytelling - mysterious outsider helps a small town defend themselves from bandits before vanishing back form where he cameI watched Mad Max once, years ago, didn't think much of it at the time. Never seen 2 or 3.
Only went to see Fury Road as it was on next and I was out using my Cineworld card to see anything just to kill some time.
What a SUPERB bit of cinema. Sure not much plot but damn what a way to spend a couple of hours - fabulous visuals, excellent sound track, wall to wall action and a fabulously over the top vibe all the way through. Thoroughly entertaining. I imagine it'd be a disaster on the small screen though.
Only went to see Fury Road as it was on next and I was out using my Cineworld card to see anything just to kill some time.
What a SUPERB bit of cinema. Sure not much plot but damn what a way to spend a couple of hours - fabulous visuals, excellent sound track, wall to wall action and a fabulously over the top vibe all the way through. Thoroughly entertaining. I imagine it'd be a disaster on the small screen though.
DamienB said:
I watched Mad Max once, years ago, didn't think much of it at the time. Never seen 2 or 3.
Only went to see Fury Road as it was on next and I was out using my Cineworld card to see anything just to kill some time.
What a SUPERB bit of cinema. Sure not much plot but damn what a way to spend a couple of hours - fabulous visuals, excellent sound track, wall to wall action and a fabulously over the top vibe all the way through. Thoroughly entertaining. I imagine it'd be a disaster on the small screen though.
I'd suggest watching 2 then, it's the daddy Only went to see Fury Road as it was on next and I was out using my Cineworld card to see anything just to kill some time.
What a SUPERB bit of cinema. Sure not much plot but damn what a way to spend a couple of hours - fabulous visuals, excellent sound track, wall to wall action and a fabulously over the top vibe all the way through. Thoroughly entertaining. I imagine it'd be a disaster on the small screen though.
Wouldn't bother with 3 though.
Lil'RedGTO said:
Probably the best petrolhead's film since Drive, in my opinion, although two more different films it is hard to imagine.
I don't know how you can even begin to call Drive a petrolhead's film.There's two short weak car chases in a couple of nondescript cars, and that's it. The title of the film should be held accountable to Trades Descriptions Act.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff