Le_Samourai
Banned
Nothing impresive about the movie, like a Road Warrior remake by Michael Bay.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mad Max: Fury Road |OT| What a Lovely Day | RT: 98% | Metacritic: 89
- Thread starter Simo
- Start date
I feel bad for people that experience the latter. It looks like most people are feeling how great it is, it must suck to be on the minority.
zero shift
Banned
So I was going to see this on the Giant 4K Ultra Screen but they ended up bumping it to the regular screen in order to accommodate Pitch-fucking-Perfect 2... Christ that made me pissed. Anyway I went to see the movie and yeah it's one of the best films I have ever seen. Instant classic. Will buy Blu-Ray, etc. etc.
I feel like what makes the film so good is that it has a lot of "soul" put into it. People always wonder why modern Blockbusters, despite all of their budget and experience, can't quite match the quality of older blockbusters such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and the likes. I feel that it is because with the latter films mentioned, the people involved in the film weren't just making another blockbuster, but they were trying to make some kind of achievement. It reminds me of what staff working on Jurassic World stated in regards to the previous film. They talked about one of the reasons why there was such a difference in CGI between the two is because when making the original Jurassic Park the team tried their absolute hardest in every aspect because making the film was a test to prove that making a film with dinosaurs truly looking like they are roaming along side was actually possible. With a mindset like that, that surely bled across the film's whole production. In contrast there is nothing like that with Jurassic World, it is just merely one of the heavy hitting summer blockbuster films.
You can really just go down the list of film classics and find similar stories. Jackson and company tried their damnest to make a high production fantasy epic that both movie goers and the academy would take seriously with the original The Lord of the Rings. Lucas and Spielberg really had to think outside the box to try and modernize the traditional action serial when creating the Raiders of the Lost Arc, as they awkwardly tried to balance disbelieving adventure mishaps with a somewhat serious tone. Compare and contrast this to say something like the Maze Runner or Insurgent. Now I am not saying these are bad films in any way, I actually think the former is very enjoyable. However, what exactly was going through the minds of those creating these films? Making another movie to set up the box office charts and nothing more, and that's the problem.
Mad Max: Fury Road is very different than most films. People keep saying it feels so fresh and that's because it is. It is a big budget blockbuster that is also gritty, post-apocalyptic, imaginative, and most of all adult focused (rated R). The team making the film were set out to see if a film like this could even work to appeal to modern audiences without toning anything down such as the content or the wackiness. I think this is what separates this film compared to pretty much every other blockbuster that is going to be released this year and why it is being herald as a classic.
The second and third films are significantly better than the first.
I feel like what makes the film so good is that it has a lot of "soul" put into it. People always wonder why modern Blockbusters, despite all of their budget and experience, can't quite match the quality of older blockbusters such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and the likes. I feel that it is because with the latter films mentioned, the people involved in the film weren't just making another blockbuster, but they were trying to make some kind of achievement. It reminds me of what staff working on Jurassic World stated in regards to the previous film. They talked about one of the reasons why there was such a difference in CGI between the two is because when making the original Jurassic Park the team tried their absolute hardest in every aspect because making the film was a test to prove that making a film with dinosaurs truly looking like they are roaming along side was actually possible. With a mindset like that, that surely bled across the film's whole production. In contrast there is nothing like that with Jurassic World, it is just merely one of the heavy hitting summer blockbuster films.
You can really just go down the list of film classics and find similar stories. Jackson and company tried their damnest to make a high production fantasy epic that both movie goers and the academy would take seriously with the original The Lord of the Rings. Lucas and Spielberg really had to think outside the box to try and modernize the traditional action serial when creating the Raiders of the Lost Arc, as they awkwardly tried to balance disbelieving adventure mishaps with a somewhat serious tone. Compare and contrast this to say something like the Maze Runner or Insurgent. Now I am not saying these are bad films in any way, I actually think the former is very enjoyable. However, what exactly was going through the minds of those creating these films? Making another movie to set up the box office charts and nothing more, and that's the problem.
Mad Max: Fury Road is very different than most films. People keep saying it feels so fresh and that's because it is. It is a big budget blockbuster that is also gritty, post-apocalyptic, imaginative, and most of all adult focused (rated R). The team making the film were set out to see if a film like this could even work to appeal to modern audiences without toning anything down such as the content or the wackiness. I think this is what separates this film compared to pretty much every other blockbuster that is going to be released this year and why it is being herald as a classic.
The second and third films are significantly better than the first.
maquiladora
Member
This might be the worst thing I have ever read.
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
I finished my last final test less than 25 mins ago, and I'm in the theater right now. Excited!!!
Tell us more.
Michael bay? Really???
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Le_Samourai
Banned
Michael Bay can be really good in what he does, this was an spectacle for sure and had excessive amounts of action but it lacked any kind of emotional investment to any of the characters, imo.
Road Warrior is way better.
Michael Bay defines dumb action by dumb scripts, directing lifeless performances, substituting actual action by explosions, growing reliance on CGI and shooting shaky, generic action. He's had his moments (The Rock, some parts of TF1) but there's not many of those.
In contrast Fury Road is a smart film in subtle ways with intense, properly minimalist dialogue, well-short action, practical effects, total clarity of image and composition. You're on drugs.
JimmyRustler
Member
I noticed something a little bit funny in my 2nd viewing yesterday.
Abbey Lee (the blond girl) is actually taller than Tom Hardy. They really do their best to hide this with the camera but every now and then you can see it. lol
Abbey Lee (the blond girl) is actually taller than Tom Hardy. They really do their best to hide this with the camera but every now and then you can see it. lol
Le_Samourai
Banned
I haven't seen the transformers movies, and I won't call this scrip smart, Hardy is a bad impression of Mel, the action it's good but not great, the ending of Road Warrior is better.
JimmyRustler
Member
It's not so much that Mad Max has a smart script but that Transformers (or really Micheal Bay movies in general) has a dumb script.
I pretty much understood what was going on all the way through, maybe missed out on some tiny bits of dialogue here and there, but Fury Road's "show, don't tell" approach to exposition took me completely by surprise.
I came in skeptical (friends were raving about it almost too much), never having seen a previous Mad Max film (but I really liked Babe and Pig in the City as a kid), and left the IMAX in a daze.
Now that I'm able to look back and process it, I think it was a really, really good film, probably one of my favorites of the year. But at the time, I don't think I could have formulated a coherent analysis of it.
I came in skeptical (friends were raving about it almost too much), never having seen a previous Mad Max film (but I really liked Babe and Pig in the City as a kid), and left the IMAX in a daze.
Now that I'm able to look back and process it, I think it was a really, really good film, probably one of my favorites of the year. But at the time, I don't think I could have formulated a coherent analysis of it.
What do you consider great action?
SolidChamp
Banned
Is there a really good review that helps to articulate the brilliance of this film? I went to the movie with two friends who shat all over it. I felt the experience was much better the second time around without them.
I Liked it, but not much story and very little character development hurt it a bit for me.
It's definitely an "experience" though, and needs to be seen in a theater on a big screen. In a way, Mad Max was more a experience than a movie. It was a wild ride that doesn't let up.
It's definitely an "experience" though, and needs to be seen in a theater on a big screen. In a way, Mad Max was more a experience than a movie. It was a wild ride that doesn't let up.
Spot on.
zero shift
Banned
2015 has really been hitting it out of the park with films: Kingsman, It Follows, Ex Machina, and Mad Max: Fury Road.
Anyway I have a few questions about Fury Road:
Anyway I have a few questions about Fury Road:
[*]Did the blonde haired bride that fell off the truck really go under the wheel? When they were taking out her baby they said that she was still breathing, does this mean Max lied?
[*]Why was the older woman naked and screaming on that high up vantage point? To lure people to loot their stuff right?
[*]Why did Nux need Max's blood while driving?
[*]Why was the older woman naked and screaming on that high up vantage point? To lure people to loot their stuff right?
[*]Why did Nux need Max's blood while driving?
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
Just bought my imax tickets for tomorrow!!!!!!! OMG SO EXCITE
1. My interpretation was yes.
He didn't want to go back and risk their lives for one, that's not what he's about.
3.
Nux is riddled with diseases and shit I think (you see lumps and whatnot on his body that he refers to killing him IIRC) and probably thought Max's pure blood (from what I could tell) would help him maybe.
I was under the impression it super charged the car somehow.
No, it "super charged" himself. He was weak and felt strength through the much needed blood.
After seeing the movie twice... She did not get ran over.
That is correct.
Dirtyshubb
Member
I dont think that Max necessarily lied about her being run over by the car, but at the moment of 'impact' he had flash backs to his kid being run over and so i think he assumed/thought he saw her going under the wheels just like his child did instead of just being hit etc.
And with minimal dialogue!
Star Falcon
Member
Awesome film - definition of 'high-octane action' for sure! Loads of cool ideas throughout.
Although that's a good theory, I believe he lied for the safety of the trucks passengers and himself. Max was more concerned for himself throughout the movie more than any other being, until the end that is.
Nux has lymphadenophathy. Probably of a maligne origin, given the radiated wasteland. He could have Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia for example, or some other form of leukemia. CLL can have anemia as a symptom, though, as well as lymphadenopathy, so having a blood donations would make sense as a treatment (for the symptom, not the cause) they could actually NOTICE having an effect without lab diagnostics.
Of course it could be another form of leukemiaor a lymphom or metastases or a simple chronic imflammation of those lymph nodes (unlikely). I like CLL though. He seems to have it for quite some time and median survival of stage 3/Binet C is up to three years, so it'd fit the "he's dying slowly but functional with fresh blood" portayal. CLL is for old folks, but again, he's a half-life, radiation is nooot good for your health.
Oh, and my impressions of the movie: Loved it. Went straight from my first autopsy to the cinema and was a bit agitated from that, it was a Friday afternoon showing, it was me solo and maybe 10 other people, but I could still enjoy the movie. BUT car chases are my least favourite type of action sequence. I wish there was more shooting and on-foot skirmishing. Not really fist fighting, because that would've taken away from the Max vs Furiosa fight feat. Nux, but some pew-pew or a few stealth takedowns would've been nice. The movie had FANTASTIC car action, though, so even I enjoyed it, and I knew it was a chase movie before going in. If you have to have cars, then make the METAL as fuck. So awesome. And beatiful explosions do help, too.
Of course it could be another form of leukemiaor a lymphom or metastases or a simple chronic imflammation of those lymph nodes (unlikely). I like CLL though. He seems to have it for quite some time and median survival of stage 3/Binet C is up to three years, so it'd fit the "he's dying slowly but functional with fresh blood" portayal. CLL is for old folks, but again, he's a half-life, radiation is nooot good for your health.
Oh, and my impressions of the movie: Loved it. Went straight from my first autopsy to the cinema and was a bit agitated from that, it was a Friday afternoon showing, it was me solo and maybe 10 other people, but I could still enjoy the movie. BUT car chases are my least favourite type of action sequence. I wish there was more shooting and on-foot skirmishing. Not really fist fighting, because that would've taken away from the Max vs Furiosa fight feat. Nux, but some pew-pew or a few stealth takedowns would've been nice. The movie had FANTASTIC car action, though, so even I enjoyed it, and I knew it was a chase movie before going in. If you have to have cars, then make the METAL as fuck. So awesome. And beatiful explosions do help, too.
Dirtyshubb
Member
While that very well could be the case considering that up to that point he had mainly been looking out for himself, for me the significance of showing the flash back to his child being run over was meant to draw parallels in a 'i couldnt stop either of them from being run over' way and that the only option was to move on with their lives because they couldnt change the past.
Great scene either way though, was a real shock and it helped show that the film had some serious balls, followed by the cutting out of the baby of course
Great scene either way though, was a real shock and it helped show that the film had some serious balls, followed by the cutting out of the baby of course
Agreed. After watching Interstellar in the theater and thinking it was a great cinema experience then going to this was like black and white.
While that very well could be the case considering that up to that point he had mainly been looking out for himself, for me the significance of showing the flash back to his child being run over was meant to draw parallels in a 'i couldnt stop either of them from being run over' way and that the only option was to move on with their lives because they couldnt change the past.
Great scene either way though, was a real shock and it helped show that the film had some serious balls, followed by the cutting out of the baby of course
Agreed!
b&jy77VjiKn$#F
Member
Oh, man.
This movie.
The feels.
I can't hold it.
Why?
I guess seeing it again will answer my question.
This movie.
The feels.
I can't hold it.
Why?
I guess seeing it again will answer my question.
GiantEnemyGoomba
Member
God DAMN that was awesome. I sat in my car still trembling for a good twenty minutes after I got out of the theater because of how intense the last action sequence was.
Setpieces were brilliantly executed, the camera work, editing, costumes, set, etc. were gorgeous, and the music caught me off guard with how great it was. Also, I'm surprised at some people saying there wasn't enough emotion or characterization or whatever; scenes like
managed to hit my heart harder than the majority of movies I've seen in the recent past. I think the minimalist dialogue worked beautifully.
Props to Miller for this. I didn't think it could live up to the hype, but it did and it's easily one of the best action movies I've seen.
Setpieces were brilliantly executed, the camera work, editing, costumes, set, etc. were gorgeous, and the music caught me off guard with how great it was. Also, I'm surprised at some people saying there wasn't enough emotion or characterization or whatever; scenes like
Furiosa falling to her knees screaming and the Keeper of the Seeds dying
Props to Miller for this. I didn't think it could live up to the hype, but it did and it's easily one of the best action movies I've seen.
I think the Variety review best articulates my feelings on the movie.
http://variety.com/2015/film/markets-festivals/mad-max-review-tom-hardy-charlize-theron-1201491726/
zero shift
Banned
Thanks for the responses to my questions.
That was his daughter in the flash backs? He had a son in the first film. Was this retconned or were those flashbacks referring to a different event with different people?
That was his daughter in the flash backs? He had a son in the first film. Was this retconned or were those flashbacks referring to a different event with different people?
The girl seems to be a new character explained in the new Comics being released soon
Absolutely, but know going in that you've seen the peak of the series (which is either RW or FR depending on personal tastes).
Think of it like the Star Wars OT. MM is A New Hope and BT is Jedi.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I sure hope A Force Awakens turns out to be Fury Road in this analogy
I doubt very much it can be THAT good, as Abrams is no Miller, but I hope the analogy will fit somewhat!