Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

I didn't mind the CG either. I mean, if you insist on depicting a sandstorm, how else would you do it? I suppose sand whipping in the faces of the characters without any wide shots of the storm itself. David Lean pulled it off in Lawrence Of Arabia, but I don't remember the particulars of the visuals.

I think Fury Road is a good, and maybe even a refreshingly weird movie (the weird, apparently unhealthy, baby-man basically trapped in his lookout chair?) by big box office standards. But I'll admit, big budget action is now in a funk--I don't need anymore J.J. Abrams/Josh Whedon save the world sequences where most or all of a major American city is destroyed. Enough of that already. There was a fairly recent interview with one of Abrams right-hand guys where he says given the budgets involved, an action movie must have a penultimate scene where the heroes save the world. That, to me, is an incorrect statement, and really only evidences a dearth of creativity in "blockbuster" movie making.

So, for me, Fury Road rights that ship a bit. By the end of the movie, I was like, "It's over already?" Time flies when you're having fun. Is it Indiana Jones or original Star Wars quality? No. But these days it's an excellent change of pace.

 

If I recall correctly, the original Mad Max movie was a wholly Australian production, and Australian films are nothing like Hollywood films, especially at that time. They have more of an indie feel to them - small and focused. It's only after it became such as world wide success, did Hollywood take notice and assumed more control over the sequels' direction (more cheese, stunts, one-liners, etc).

 

Saw it tonight. Fun but a tad overrated. Very little dialog and almost no plot but the action was beautifully filmed.

 

You see, I was baffled by the R rating. I have no idea why it received an R except for the "mother's milk" scene. Otherwise I thought it was an extremely tame PG or PG-13.

 

I don't have kids, am 48 years old, have pretty much seen it all, and thought Fury Road was one of the more graphically violent films I've seen in a while.

Definitely worthy of an "R" rating in my opinion.

Interesting that you think the mother's milk bit is the "edgiest" thing in the movie.

 

I didn't really even see any gore or bloodshed. Weird. Everything flew by so fast it was practically imperceptible if it was there. I mean there were lots of bodies tumbling around in crashes but nothing like the violence you see in R rated movies today.

 

I'm wondering if we saw the same film.

lol

 

It's not what I'd call a hard R. Perhaps technically an R in objective terms, but it felt at most like PG-13 to me. I wouldn't let my 8 year old see it yet.

 

I enjoyed it, and I liked the weird bits (shrunken man in chair, heroine missing part of an arm, legless guy at the end, etc). It's a non stop thrill ride, not something you think about. Just enjoy it for what it is.

 

I agree...I can't think of anything in Fury Road that was graphically violent....no severed limbs or intestines. The scene with the baby...that was all suggested.

I would say Revenge of the Sith was more graphically violent than Fury Road!

 

I find it both unbelievable and sad that Mad Max is going to be beaten by a stupid-looking sequel to a movie that I've never even heard of in the first place.

 

It's probably due to cinematic explosion/destruction fatigue, R-rating and the desire to see something light and fluffy for a change.

 

We saw it TWICE on Saturday, once in 2D and then 3D! My opinion: don't bother with the 3D, it's dark and the spectacular colour palette used is washed out compared to the 2D. There are no areas where the 3D effect really comes into play either. Go 2D all the way!

Now the film itself. On first viewing I couldn't get my brain to wrap around the simple idea that ol' Mel had been replaced by Tom. No disrespect to Tom but he ain't Mel. However, as the film is more about Furiosa anyway it is not too difficult to come to terms with this as the film progresses. MM: FR is bascally MM II (Road Warrior) on steroids! Everything is louder, faster, bigger, heavier and even more souped up than MM II. Story? Not really. Plot? Is there one? Hell no but you don't watch MM for the story really, do you?

I liked the opening credit sequence with the chrome "Mad Max" emblazened across the screen and "Fury Road" text burnt into the screen with hot fuse wire - a neat touch that pays tribute to the first two films and is much preferred to the dated 80's Tina Turner songs that back in 85 spoilt the beginning of "Thunderdome" for me. However, I did not like the opening part of the film as it is far too Hollywoodised and standard fight action fare for me with its ten cliches per minute. Thankfully after that things get much better.

This is one seriously messed up exciting high octane, low brain, actioner and I loved it. Yes the stunt work is amazing and crazier than ever and of course characters in the movie do some very implausible things and live to tell the tale. If you want realism, look somewhere else. This is still the old style epic comic book heroic stuff and there is definitely a place for it today. There are a number of running gags which I believe are there simply for us older folks who grew up with the original movies. The bullet in the gun is one such example. Younger viewers won't get any of this stuff.

With all this said, I can't help wondering a few things. 30 years have passed since the Thunderdome film came out and Miller has created several thousand story boards based on all his ideas over that time and apparently shot over 480 hours of footage for this film. There is an element of me thinking is this it, is this all they could come up with after all that effort? Could it have been better? I believe so. The other thing is that the character of Furiosa is so much more significant than Max you have to wonder if her character will be the centre of the follow-up films and maybe "Max" will cease to even appear in them from here on out? Maybe Fury Road is a clever reboot of an old franchise that exists to use a new Max simply to cover the transition period wherein a new female character is introduced who will end up being the central role and "warrior" for the new franchises? It might make the lack of Mel more palatable? This is possible when you consider that Max is not currently played by Mel G.

The other "concern" I have is that the look, style and vision of this latest film will likely be the template for the follow-ups, whereas The Road Warrior rewrote the book on that subject and was as different from Mad Max as Thunderdome was then from it. If I'm right, and I hope I'm not, this will be another clear break from the spirit of the original films. I can't help thinking that any Fury Road sequels will be formulaic re-treads of this film, something that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.

As a stand alone film without any reference to the original movies I'd rate it ****/*****

 

I wouldn't mind if the Charlize Theron character took over. She kicked serious butt in the movie.

The key element in this series is George Miller, not Max/Maxine.

 

I feel the same way, compared to Game of Thrones this movie was very tame, I'd like to know how Road Fury got tagged with an "R" rating, it wasn't for language and the violence wasn't gory or explicit in any way.

 

Rated R for intense sequences of violence throughout, and for disturbing images.

I think it qualifies. Why people are upset that an 8 year old can't just go to this by himself is beyond me.

 

I saw "Fury Road" this evening. I can't even. It's like "Mad Max 2" meets every overblown 80s music video. Like "Total Eclipse Of The Heart" with Tusken raiders and monster trucks.

I don't know whether I love it or loathe it.

--Geoff

 

Pretty sure the credits just listed "Doof Warrior" at my screening.

And I've got a couple of iOTA albums ...

--Geoff

 

The plot is kinda 80s teenage comedy, when you think about it:

Spoiler

Max picks up some hot girls after a party and takes them home. It's kinda lame, so they invite some of their friends along and go back to the party. They get chased by boys. Hilarity ensues.

--Geoff

 

the wife and I saw it last night, we both enjoyed it more than we thought we would... def worth seeing on the big screen. And I thought it was worthy of an R rating. Some of violence happened pretty fast but there was lots of blood/gore... especially how the main bad guy meets his demise.

What an intense first hour of the film, then you get like a 2 minute break and it all starts again. I really liked the "rock-n-roll rig".

 

Saw it Friday with my wife. Both liked it, neither loved it. It certainly is NOT a 98% Rotten Tomatoes "best movie evah" motion picture. Someone above said it's like a mix of Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome, and I would agree with that. It's certainly a good film, but it's got so much stuff that crosses over into "camp," that it diminishes the legitimate drama, IMHO.

I loved the use of more practical FX throughout, and thought the use of CGI was tasteful and not overblown. I liked the characters, especially Furiosa and Nux, and thought Max was simply a supporting character for Furiosa. That's not a bad thing, but I was surprised he was so underused.

The "Giant Boombox - LIVE" vehicle was the sole thing that took me so far out of the movie I didn't think I'd get back in. Laughably ridiculous. I know some folks are ga-ga over the flamethrower guitarist and his drum posse, but to me it was just so incredibly stupid. If you're going to see the movie in the mindset of Thunderdome, you'll enjoy the Boombox. If you're going to see the movie in the mindset of Mad Max or Road Warrior, be prepared for copious amounts of eye-rolling, head-shaking and face-palming during those scenes.

I'm a big fan of Road Warrior. Saw it at a midnight movie in the theater when it was originally released, and many, many times since. Fury Road is a good extension of RW - and worth seeing - but it is not the perfection the reviewer community is making it out to be.

 

His demise happened so fast that I wasn't even sure exactly what had just occurred.... the editing during those few shots could've been a little clearer. Even a few minutes later when you see his corpse, I only got a vague idea of how he was killed. A small complaint in an otherwise awesome film.

 

[QUOTE="SteveM, post: 12348603, member: 50501"


This is one seriously messed up exciting high octane, low brain, actioner and I loved it. Yes the stunt work is amazing and crazier than ever and of course characters in the movie do some very implausible things and live to tell the tale. If you want realism, look somewhere else. This is still the old style epic comic book heroic stuff and there is definitely a place for it today. There are a number of running gags which I believe are there simply for us older folks who grew up with the original movies. The bullet in the gun is one such example. Younger viewers won't get any of this stuff.

[/QUOTE]
exactly what i'm looking for from this movie

 

Ended up seeing this on Saturday. I didn’t go in with too many expectations, despite the 98% RT rating and whatnot. I’ve never been super into the Mad Max films, but I was open go a good action flick.

Perhaps because I don’t bombard myself with a ton of new action films, I don’t know if I can say this film is the “craziest thing” of all time like some reviewers have said or implied. One blub mentioned that Miller has “schooled Michael Bay” and his ilk on how to make action films. I’d say that’s actually a pretty feasible observation. If you’re going to do an all-out action film, this is how to do it and still keep the thing reasonably interesting.

I hate to down the acting in this film; it’s fine. But the only actual star of the film is the action. They got lead actors with enough gravitas, and that’s all it really needs. (I frankly wouldn’t have minded a bit more dialogue from Hardy; just a bit more on his backstory or something).

The guitar guy? I laughed out loud every time he came on the screen? Was that intended? I don’t know, though I would lean towards yes. Was it ridiculous? Absolutely. Yet, it entertained because it was so over the top.

As for the “R” rating, I would say that while the MPAA typically allows for FAR more violence (and gore) as compared to sex/nudity (see the documentary “This Film Is Not Yet Rated”), this film got an R purely because of the cumulative effect of the violence. There wasn’t a lot of blood and gore (though a bit, especially near the end), and the stuff blowing up and the bits of blood and gore were quick cut. But I would imagine it got an R because of the cumulative nature of it all. (Sort of how, as I believe Vidiot mentioned in another thread, that old “Terror in the Aisles” film featuring a compilation of largely non-R rated film still nearly got an R because of the cumulative effect of the violence).

I think the film is treading towards being overrated in the reviews I’ve seen. But it’s a good film, a fun one. As good as the over-the-top action/blow-up movies can be. So it would be a bummer if it does “poorly” at the box office.

 

I don't think it did poorly at the box office. I think $44 million is a decent haul for an R-rated sequel to a franchise that hasn't had a new installment for 30 years. The early predictions were in the $40 to $50 million range and they landed smack dab in the center.