Support NeoGAF

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Roll your eyes into the back of your head all you want. I stand by what I said. It's pure in its economy of language and motion. There's nothing wasted. They wring a lot of emotion out of very minimal scenes and throughout the high energy action scenes very well. It's totally stripped down, almost zero exposition outside of the opening news broadcasts. Tells the barest plot and allows you to fill in the gaps.

But hey, you can turn it into a film/cinema/movie circle jerk all you want.

I think you meant to say it was the leanest film you've ever seen, then. The purest film you've ever seen though? Like, it was the film that best personified what it means to be a film? As if there's a strict definition you can boil (limit) a film down to being? It was the most concentrated piece of celluloid you've seen to the point that there were almost no parts that weren't cinematic? That, my dear NotTheGuy, is cinemarrrrr circle jerk talk.

 

[TheKaeptain]

I think you meant to say it was the leanest film you've ever seen, then. The purest film you've ever seen though? Like, it was the film that best personified what it means to be a film? As if there's a strict definition you can boil (limit) a film down to being? That, my dear NotTheGuy, is cinemarrrrr circle jerk talk.

Unless he's talking about Luc Besson's Subway because that's the most cinema movie of all time.

 

[Maddocks]

Haven't watched the movie yet, because I have been so busy, but I get to watch it come Wednesday. But can't wait, to see it all my friends who are lucky enough to watch it praise it so can't wait!

 

[b&jy77VjiKn$#F]

I think you meant to say it was the leanest film you've ever seen, then. The purest film you've ever seen though? Like, it was the film that best personified what it means to be a film? As if there's a strict definition you can boil (limit) a film down to being? It was the most concentrated piece of celluloid you've seen to the point that there were almost no parts that weren't cinematic? That, my dear NotTheGuy, is cinemarrrrr circle jerk talk.

Goddamn.

 

[DAVIDHUXLEY]

Do not take your 10 year old to this film.

Took my 12 year old. He commented on the world/reality of the film being great. He loved the movie. Also, he got gut rot from eating a large bag of sour patch kids. Hiiiiiiilarious. Too much of a good thing .

 

[BertramCooper]

Wow, this film had a pretty lengthy post-production.

Filming wrapped in December 2012.

 

[cacildo]

Whatched it yesterday

It was ok

I miss blood and gore in movies

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Wow, this film had a pretty lengthy post-production.

Filming wrapped in December 2012.

There were reshoots in late 2013/early 2014.

 

[munchie64]

Goddamn this was amazing. Feature length chase sequence made up of amazing moments. Every action scene was great, and I liked all the characters. Definitely deserves the hype. Just a wild, crazy ride.

I liked all the old Australian actors they put in there.

 

[GSG Flash]

Brothers in Arms is really as awesome as everyone is saying, it makes me wanna watch the movie again.

 

[Wenger'sBakedBaguettes]

Extraordinary film.

 

[F!ReW!Re]

Going for my second viewing in 50 minutes...

 

[Corpsepyre]

So, just had an argument with a guy on Facebook who was planning on boycotting the movie because it's 'feminist' and how he is curious to see how many women die over men in this 2 hour movie.

Seriously now, what the hell is wrong with people?

 

[Klyka]

So, just had an argument with a guy on Facebook who was planning on boycotting the movie because it's 'feminist' and how he is curious to see how many women die over men in this 2 hour movie.

Seriously now, what the hell is wrong with people?

Fighting the good fight for oppressed men everywhere

 

[Scrooged]

Wow, this film had a pretty lengthy post-production.

Filming wrapped in December 2012.

The history of the movie is pretty crazy. This video with the director of photography has ton of interesting info. https://vimeo.com/127381179
This interview with Miller is good too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPZeRAqGdVo

Miller first conceived the movie back in 1999 and it was originally going to be shot in 2001 but kept on being delayed.

 

[Big_Al]

I can't stop thinking about this, I really want to see it again.

 

[Monocle]

So, just had an argument with a guy on Facebook who was planning on boycotting the movie because it's 'feminist' and how he is curious to see how many women die over men in this 2 hour movie.

Seriously now, what the hell is wrong with people?

Just another insecure manbaby. Tell him he needs to sack up and learn to accept women as equals if he plans to become an adult at some point in his life.

 

[Corpsepyre]

Just another insecure manbaby. Tell him he needs to sack up and learn to accept women as equals if he plans to become an adult at some point in his life.

I got into a heated argument.

Some people are just too thick-headed to understand logic. *Sigh*

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Saw the movie yesterday, and loved it. It is one of the best examples of old school filmmaking we've seen in a long time, and I appreciated the fact that there was very little CGI. The real world stunts were tremendous.

That said, the film is lean on story and dialog, so I can understand why some were not as impressed. On the surface, there just isn't much there. But underneath, it is actually pretty deep, with a lot of subtleties that go unnoticed if you're not looking for them. The world is amazingly deep for instance, but Miller doesn't hold the audience's hand, explaining every detail. He just drops you in, and hits "go." You either need to keep up and accept things, or you're going to be distracted by the lack of detail that is given, rather than shown. I for one came out of the movie wondering so much about the backstory of the characters, how things got to the point they did, etc. The "lean" story was brilliantly told, and this feels like a real world that I'd want to explore further.

I feel bad for Max. He gets captured in Road Warrior, loses his vehicle in Thunderdome, and he gets off to a rough start in Fury Road.

 

[thequestion]

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

Yeah I dunno.
This is definitely a 3 star/good to see once movie.

It was very good but not great. The chases/action were fine the exception being the final one which was very good. But none of them got me to sit up in my seat/give me goosebumps/thrill me. Nothing like the final race in Speed Racer, which up till now I was using as a measuring stick for "can't believe they let someone make this super expensive, narrow appeal movie".

I think people should live with this movie longer before the declare it anything. It was good..better than most of the stuff released over the past few summers but it wasn't some masterpiece. And I'm saying this is as a 36 year old, practical effect fanatic, fan of the Mad Max series.

Also.."Brothers in Arms". I listened to that track a lot before seeing this and I feel it was wasted in the movie. It is a great 6 minute action track and half of it was used to score the bad guy climbing over some fucking rocks.

 

[MoG EclipsE]

Your problem is that you complained about a movie having too much green screen when it has very, very little(you compared it to a movie filmed ENTIRELY in front of a green screen). You brought the backlash upon yourself. It also doesn't help when the examples you site are two very small parts of the movie.
Though you may think otherwise, opinions can be wrong. And yours is.

I guess the other 20% just looked straight up bad then, I don't know. I mean 20% is still enough to take me out of the movie when it happens. I am not saying the whole movie looked this way though is what you don't understand... I just feel that overall, I came away thinking it looked choppy and quite a few parts looked off.

I guess my opinion is wrong though because I am criticizing your favorite movie and I probably hurt your feelings. Please allow me to apologize.

 

[SkylineRKR]

So, just had an argument with a guy on Facebook who was planning on boycotting the movie because it's 'feminist' and how he is curious to see how many women die over men in this 2 hour movie.

Seriously now, what the hell is wrong with people?

I dunno man.

I love how women weren't objectified in this. Ofcourse they were by the bad guy to some extent, but they were mainly used for their abilities to breed and feed. As men were used to wage war for him.

The women stood their own in this flick. They kicked ass, but they also got their ass kicked.

We're equal with both our strengths and weaknesses. I don't see a problem. Its 2015.

 

[Night Hunter]

I guess the other 20% just looked straight up bad then, I don't know. I mean 20% is still enough to take me out of the movie when it happens. I am not saying the whole movie looked this way though is what you don't understand... I just feel that overall, I came away thinking it looked choppy and quite a few parts looked off.

Depends. What did you think of the

Spoiler

sandstorm

or the

Spoiler

citadel

or

Spoiler

Furiosa's arm

? Because I think that is pretty much it aside from colour grading and background stuff.

 

[Corpsepyre]

I dunno man.

I love how women weren't objectified in this. Ofcourse they were by the bad guy to some extent, but they were mainly used for their abilities to breed and feed. As men were used to wage war for him.

The women stood their own in this flick. They kicked ass, but they also got their ass kicked.

We're equal with both our strengths and shortcomings. I don't see a problem.

He said that Charlize barks order at Max, and that is extremely childish. Ugh.

I guess all of the Alien movies are feminist in their agendas then because Ripley would rip open new assholes too.

 

[BronsonLee]

I guess my opinion is wrong though because I am criticizing your favorite movie and I probably hurt your feelings. Please allow me to apologize.

You're doing a pretty bad job of explaining your stance, though. Especially considering how heavy you started, and how clearly condescending you're being.

Also, does Furiosa even bark orders at Max in the whole movie?

 

[GK86]

I'm seeing this in a few hours. Incredibly hyped for it.

 

[inm8num2]

George Miller talks Fury Road with VICE (haven't watched fully, don't know about spoilers).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9_VxcSHyWI

 

[SkylineRKR]

He said that Charlize barks order at Max, and that is extremely childish. Ugh.

I guess all of the Alien movies are feminist in their agendas then because Ripley would rip open new assholes too.

He clearly doesn't have a relationship.

 

[MoG EclipsE]

You're doing a pretty bad job of explaining your stance, though. Especially considering how heavy you started, and how clearly condescending you're being.

Also, does Furiosa even bark orders at Max in the whole movie?

And how am I doing a bad job?

Little dialog
Poorly developed story
Action is very repetitive and gets very boring
visuals seem choppy, with some obvious green screen parts
Score is ok

Above is the reason I did not like the movie...

 

[RustyNails]

Man, what an astounding movie. The visuals are like a painting come to life. Raw, post-apocalyptic painting by a kerosene fiend. Like Max says in the trailer, his world is fire and blood. It's fire, blood, metal and gasoline. Trust me when I say Furiosa is the best part of Mad Max: Fury Road. She rocks the War Rig like a motherfucker. She is on a mission and the choices she makes are gonna have a ripple effect in the entire desolate warzone. But don't let MRA clowns fool you into thinking Max has a diminished role. He doesn't. He has a very strong presence in the movie, and Furiosa stands shoulder to shoulder with him. The bad guys are just as you'd expect: over the top and out of control. Immortan Joe steals the show as the villain overlord. The world building was well done, from what little bits and pieces you learn.

I don't need to mention the INSANE action setpieces that form the beating heart of the movie. Holy crap. The OST was just as incredible. Ok, my brain is spit-firing now and I'll stop. There were a couple minor negative points I found in the movie (I'll talk about it in the spoiler thread). But it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things and can only constitute as nitpicking.

This movie has dethroned every other action movie in recent memory. Fury Road is king.

 

[JB1981]

I guess the other 20% just looked straight up bad then, I don't know. I mean 20% is still enough to take me out of the movie when it happens. I am not saying the whole movie looked this way though is what you don't understand... I just feel that overall, I came away thinking it looked choppy and quite a few parts looked off.

I guess my opinion is wrong though because I am criticizing your favorite movie and I probably hurt your feelings. Please allow me to apologize.

There is some obvious CG backdrops sprinkled throughout the movie. The movie doesn't linger on them because it moves at such a fast clip but they are definitely there.

 

[Night Hunter]

And how am I doing a bad job?

Little dialog
Poorly developed story
Action is very repetitive and gets very boring
visuals seem choppy, with some obvious green screen parts
Score is ok

Above is the reason I did not like the movie...

Everything else here is definitely up for debate, but the bolded is just wrong. You can't have some obvious green screen parts in a movie with next to no green screens.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Everything else here is definitely up for debate, but the bolded is just wrong. You can't have some obvious green screen parts in a movie with next to no green screens.

There was quite a bit of green screen work in it. The video with John Seale talking about shooting it, they show the giant green screen they built and took to the desert to put behind the war rig. There is still a ton of CGI work in the film, it is just so well integrated most of the time you don't notice it.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Everything else here is definitely up for debate, but the bolded is just wrong. You can't have some obvious green screen parts in a movie with next to no green screens.

There were a bunch of shots with people standing on top of the rigs with the sky in the background that looked really heavy on green screen use. So they were either comps or they put some type of video screen behind them. But yeah there were fake looking shots but not too many of them.

 

[Megalosaro]

And how am I doing a bad job?

Little dialog
Poorly developed story
Action is very repetitive and gets very boring
visuals seem choppy, with some obvious green screen parts
Score is ok

Above is the reason I did not like the movie...

How is that a problem?

 

[MoG EclipsE]

Everything else here is definitely up for debate, but the bolded is just wrong. You can't have some obvious green screen parts in a movie with next to no green screens.

Alright, I just want to explain this because this seems to be the only thing people are having problems with me saying. To me, I do not know if it's green screen or another visual technique; I am no expert. I just feel like a lot of parts had background shots that did not seem to blend in. The sandstorm par was def green screened, it did look terrible. The rest though, I have no idea what it is, but like I said, many parts seemed to have a background pasted that did not blend in. I felt this way for maybe 30% of the movie? I do not know, but there are some choppy visuals in there to me. I see a lot of people saying it looks like a painting come to life, well in many places it looks like just that, a painting slapped into the background or something, and it feels off. I can't explain it any better sorry.

 

[Panzon]

Saw it last night. I was hoping to be completely blown away after seeing all the glowing reviews but unfortunately that wasn't the case

Just didn't click with me

 

[MoG EclipsE]

How is that a problem?

It doesn't have to be if this is the kinda thing you are into. Mindless action. I like to have some good dialog in my movies with a decently fleshed out story.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

To me, I do not know if it's green screen or another visual technique; I am no expert... The rest though, I have no idea what it is, but like I said, many parts seemed to have a background pasted that did not blend in. I felt this way for maybe 30% of the movie? I do not know, but there are some choppy visuals in there to me... I can't explain it any better sorry.

I think, more than the actual complaints you're leveling, it's the bolded above that people are responding to. When you give off the sense that you actually don't understand the things you're criticizing, and you do it rather stridently (as you've been doing in the thread since you first entered it) people are going address that.

The idea that you're going to judge the film without caring to know what you're talking about first is likely why you're going to get the pushback you're getting, and why it's hard for you to support those statements satisfactorily, because you don't really have the frame of reference to elaborate further.

 

[BertramCooper]

About to see it for a second time.

 

[Kimosabae]

So the 3d in this is good? I'm seeing this today and my company is a 3D nut

 

[Crisco]

The picture quality was absolutely pristine, and some of the shots they pulled offed just seem impossible to not have been totally generated inside a computer.

So the 3d in this is good? I'm seeing this today and my company is a 3D nut

Yeah, they used to make some of the shots even more stunning, because of the ability to keep both the foreground and background in sharp focus simultaneously.

 

[B33]

It doesn't have to be if this is the kinda thing you are into. Mindless action. I like to have some good dialog in my movies with a decently fleshed out story.

Film is a visual medium first and foremost.

FURY ROAD boasting sparse dialogue doesn't mean it's bereft of a story. Before sound, movies were still able to convey stories. It chooses to go about its storytelling in a different way that harks back to the silent era of film.

 

[Metal-Geo]

So the 3d in this is good? I'm seeing this today and my company is a 3D nut

There are barely any scenes that benefit from 3D. Bar one or two shots that were obviously made specifically for 3D. And the movie has such vivid, bright colours that it's really a waste to have some stupid 3D glasses dim the picture.

After watching it in 3D, I immediately reserved tickets for a 2D screening for the following day. Worth it.

 

[supernormal]

I saw this yesterday. Fell asleep like I did with Ultron. This was a more interesting flick though. At the end of it all it was ok but not what it was hyped to be.

 

[Gastone]

Nothing like the final race in Speed Racer, which up till now I was using as a measuring stick for "can't believe they let someone make this super expensive, narrow appeal movie".

Also.."Brothers in Arms". I listened to that track a lot before seeing this and I feel it was wasted in the movie. It is a great 6 minute action track and half of it was used to score the bad guy climbing over some fucking rocks.

Speed Racer? Measuring stick?

I remember the brothers in arms track being used during the chase/shootout with the motorcycle grenade-throwing psychos.

But...Fucking speed racer???

 

[nictron]

This movie was so solid. It was relatively simple and never tried to be something it shouldn't be. The practical effects were amazing. It was brutal without being overly gruesome.

This George Miller guy may have a great career ahead of him.

 

[Hamlet]

I saw this yesterday. Fell asleep like I did with Ultron. This was a more interesting flick though. At the end of it all it was ok but not what it was hyped to be.

Lol what is it with people falling alseep during this film.

 

[MoG EclipsE]

I think, more than the actual complaints you're leveling, it's the bolded above that people are responding to. When you give off the sense that you actually don't understand the things you're criticizing, and you do it rather stridently (as you've been doing in the thread since you first entered it) people are going address that.

The idea that you're going to judge the film without caring to know what you're talking about first is likely why you're going to get the pushback you're getting, and why it's hard for you to support those statements satisfactorily, because you don't really have the frame of reference to elaborate further.

I gave examples of scenes that particularly felt off to me. I can't remember every single one, and I shouldn't need to. Are they green screen? Maybe. I can't tell you specifically what happened in the production room, I am just saying I found it to look off, and it took me out of the movie quite a few times. Why should anyone need me to analyze the techniques that went into each particular scene I thought looked bad, as if they know? Ya, they quote that 80% are practical effects, nice you can quote IMDB trivia. Not that I think it is untrue, but it isn't 100%, so what does it matter?

I am not making any claims. I am simply saying I do not think the visuals were mind blowing. Simply average for a blockbuster with this kind of budget.

I don't go around asking everyone who thought the visuals were mind blowing to justify by telling me the techniques that were used in particular scenes and what makes them better than any other movie. I understand that they liked what they saw and that's that. No in depth justification needed.

When GAF loves a movie, generally I am on bard as well. Although, time to time I will disagree with the majority, and I should be able to do this. I stated why I did not like the movie with general comments, explained the best I could when someone asked me to clarify, and it should end there. No one should worry this much about how I felt about the movie. If they enjoyed it, great, all the power to them. I am glad people loved this movie. I left disappointing, as I did really want to love it as well.