Mad Max: Trailer looks awesome!

Batutta said:
Even 70 year old ladies like Mad Max: Fury Road--

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/05/19/mad-max-fury-road-as-reviewed-by-my-70-year-old-mother-in-law
Click to expand...

I don't know if anyone seems to realize it... but Sergio Leone and similar sort of 'high violent' films, first came out when that 70 year old was young 20s something... why the hell do 'young' writers think that 60/70+ people want sedate, no-sex, 'heart felt' soppy films....

The biggest group that is whining about 'screen violence' these days are much younger...
 
Awesome movie. Saw it at the drive in. Excellent story structure. The reversal in the middle of act 2 is right where it is supposed to be almost down to the minute.
 
Gillvane said:
Awesome movie. Saw it at the drive in. Excellent story structure. The reversal in the middle of act 2 is right where it is supposed to be almost down to the minute.
Click to expand...

There are still drive ins?...I suppose if there's one movie to see in your car, this would be it.
 
Batutta said:
There are still drive ins?...I suppose if there's one movie to see in your car, this would be it.
Click to expand...
I haven't looked at the list in a while but I think there are about 300 drive in movie theaters still operating in the us. The one I go to is 7 bucks for a double feature and you can get burgers and corn dogs at the concession stand.
 
I've seen it in 2D on an oversized screen. Going to go and watch it at least once more. Might as well watch a couple of different formats. Anyone seen it in 3D recommend it? The biggest failure in the relaunch of 3D with Avatar has been this ludicrous idea to not use it to have anything come out of the screen. James Cameron messed up there big time. What's the point in 3D if you're not ducking? It is a gimmick and should be used as such. I've been thinking the guys swinging from side to side on the poles would be really cool if they come out of the screen.
 
refocusedmedia said:
Saw it again, this time in 2D and with Dolby Atmos. This is easily one of the greatest films in recent memory.
Click to expand...

The distance is so great between our opinions that it's like we live on two different planets.

This about sums up my opinion:
Max accompanies a woman trying to rescue pregnant concubines from a despotic ruler.
While there's no doubt that some of the action sequences are well-choreographed and mildly entertaining, the most important part of a film is its story. This one doesn't get started until about thirty minutes in, and the character development is sloppy, uneven, and unnaturally rushed. For example, we're supposed to believe that the frenetic war boy abandons his blind faith because of one embarrassing maneuver and the fact that he got to stare into a girl's eyes for two minutes. Those must be some eyes.
The reason that story is so important, especially in action films, is that the audience must be kept in suspense about how the action sequence will end. Here, there's no doubt about who will survive; the only question is how, which isn't that entertaining.
This film's champions shouldn't think that I don't get the gender politics here. I understand that the film puts women in positions of power, that it stands against sex slavery, and that its depiction of women is more progressive than many other films in the genre. That's all great and the reason why the film got one star instead of a half.
Overall, this story is weak, and all the chase sequences in the world can't rescue a weak story.- Jim Hunter RT
Click to expand...

Maybe it's a Euro/American thing. (Though I am American living abroad). I can tell you that most Europeans I meet, shrug their shoulders after seeing the film and say, "Another smash em up American style action film, so what?"

Maybe the film is great compared to other action films, but for me that's not saying much. For me the film is mildly entertaining at best. Evolutionary perhaps, but most certainly not revolutionary. I see nothing earth shaking in it's supposed advances for the genre and I most certainly do not see greatness. Citizen Kane it is not.

In terms of the gender politics, it still feels like some little boy fantasy about being seated next to a curvaceous action hero on a dragon slaying mission. Honestly if the women were less model-like, it would feel a heck of a lot more real for me and a heck of a lot more of an advance for women in Hollywood. For me this whole gender argument is merely paying lip service to a very traditional set of Hollywood ingredients which require seduction, attractive semi-nude vixens, car crashes and guns and is only another aspect of the marketing and hype. The pressure to be attractive at all costs and even under the most difficult set of circumstances is still the dominant value. It is the message that is sent to any young girl in the public and what she is being more or less told to live up to. Remember, it's only the attractive ones which have a chance of escape. That is hardly revolutionary. Otherwise it's only an old crone protecting the fruits and flowers of the next generation. Imagine if the star was a plain jane, who was courageous and compelling and we were focused on what she says rather than what she wears (or doesnt). Now that would be a revolution for women.

In any case, it's very curious, this great divide in our opinions.

To each his own.
 
Last edited:
Egg Born Son said:
Anyone seen it in 3D recommend it?
Click to expand...
I saw it in 3D (had no choice, only versions dubbed in German were available in 2D).
I felt it was mainly distracting. Some rather impressive but just gimmicky. And could never shake the feeling of "man, this probably looks really good without the 3D". So as soon as I can find a theatre that shows it in original language 2D I'll go see it again ;)
 
Egg Born Son said:
I've seen it in 2D on an oversized screen. Going to go and watch it at least once more. Might as well watch a couple of different formats. Anyone seen it in 3D recommend it? The biggest failure in the relaunch of 3D with Avatar has been this ludicrous idea to not use it to have anything come out of the screen. James Cameron messed up there big time. What's the point in 3D if you're not ducking? It is a gimmick and should be used as such. I've been thinking the guys swinging from side to side on the poles would be really cool if they come out of the screen.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. When 3d went picture window style a la Avatar, I quit going to 3d movies. Not worth it because it was just distracting looking through this picture window and didn't ad anything for me.

The 3d is all done in post. They could not shoot 3d because the camera rigs were to big for all the action shots.
 
yoclay said:
Maybe it's a Euro/American thing. (Though I am American living abroad). I can tell you that most Europeans I meet, shrug their shoulders after seeing the film and say, "Another smash em up American style action film, so what?"
Click to expand...
Well, I'm European living in Europe. To me it seems that the vast majority are rather impressed by it.
For me, I'm usually not a fan of action movies. That was my biggest worry going to see it, that it would just be too much action. It was, but it worked for me anyway.
I would have preferred to see more of the world, more of Immortan Joe and his wives and Furiosa/Nux etc and less action though. But I do appreciate George Millers idea of a long car chase with human cargo, and he pulled it off. If there's sequels/prequels to this one they might be more diverse.
I am a huge fan of post-apocalyptic stuff, and the first three Mad Max movies are probably what got me into that in the first place, so needless to say; I was really looking forward to this. And it didn't disappoint.
Now if only Bladerunner 2 has the same high standard I'll be a happy man! :)
 
yoclay said:
The distance is so great between our opinions that it's like we live on two different planets.

This about sums up my opinion:


Maybe it's a Euro/American thing. (Though I am American living abroad). I can tell you that most Europeans I meet, shrug their shoulders after seeing the film and say, "Another smash em up American style action film, so what?"

Maybe the film is great compared to other action films, but for me that's not saying much. For me the film is mildly entertaining at best. Evolutionary perhaps, but most certainly not revolutionary. I see nothing earth shaking in it's supposed advances for the genre and I most certainly do not see greatness. Citizen Kane it is not.

In terms of the gender politics, it still feels like some little boy fantasy about being seated next to a curvaceous action hero on a dragon slaying mission. Honestly if the women were less model-like, it would feel a heck of a lot more real for me and a heck of a lot more of an advance for women in Hollywood. For me this whole gender argument is merely paying lip service to a very traditional set of Hollywood ingredients which require seduction, attractive semi-nude vixens, car crashes and guns and is only another aspect of the marketing and hype. The pressure to be attractive at all costs and even under the most difficult set of circumstances is still the dominant value. It is the message that is sent to any young girl in the public and what she is being more or less told to live up to. Remember, it's only the attractive ones which have a chance of escape. That is hardly revolutionary. Otherwise it's only an old crone protecting the fruits and flowers of the next generation. Imagine if the star was a plain jane, who was courageous and compelling and we were focused on what she says rather than what she wears (or doesnt). Now that would be a revolution for women.

In any case, it's very curious, this great divide in our opinions.

To each his own.
Click to expand...

Most of the praise for this film is because of the tight story telling which makes it more than an action film. The story happens during the action, unlike many action films where the story just goes on pause while we watch a big fight or car chase.

I'm a big fan of story structure, and this film really has a tight story structure with all the plot points right where they are supposed to be and very well executed.

You don't get reviews and ratings like this on Rotten Tomatoes for a mediocre film:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mad_max_fury_road/
 
Egg Born Son said:
I've seen it in 2D on an oversized screen. Going to go and watch it at least once more. Might as well watch a couple of different formats. Anyone seen it in 3D recommend it? The biggest failure in the relaunch of 3D with Avatar has been this ludicrous idea to not use it to have anything come out of the screen. James Cameron messed up there big time. What's the point in 3D if you're not ducking? It is a gimmick and should be used as such. I've been thinking the guys swinging from side to side on the poles would be really cool if they come out of the screen.
Click to expand...

It's one of the craziest 3D experiences I've had, but overall I felt it was distracting. The expanse of the wasteland, proximity of the vehicles, and spatial relationships during movement are used to great effect, but Miller fills the frame with so much interest and data that I often felt I was missing out as my eyes constantly adjusted and scanned in the midst of the fast-cut intense action.
 
yoclay said:
Maybe it's a Euro/American thing. (Though I am American living abroad). I can tell you that most Europeans I meet, shrug their shoulders after seeing the film and say, "Another smash em up American style action film, so what?"
Click to expand...

Considering it's A) not an American or America-style film at all and B) recently received a standing ovation at Cannes, I'd have to say it seems like that reaction is less common than you might think.

Maybe the film is great compared to other action films, but for me that's not saying much. For me the film is mildly entertaining at best. Evolutionary perhaps, but most certainly not revolutionary. I see nothing earth shaking in it's supposed advances for the genre and I most certainly do not see greatness. Citizen Kane it is not.
Click to expand...

This film is spitting in the face of Hollywood action films. It's showing them that you can not only do action better, but you can have a rich storyline and compelling characters while you do it. It puts to shame all the films you're trying to dismiss it as being similar to. It is receiving so much acclaim precisely because it is not just another action film -- because it has so much commentary (social, political, economical, ecological) that is expressed through true visual storytelling within impeccable world-building while simultaneously being a tremendous feat of action filmmaking.

In terms of the gender politics, it still feels like some little boy fantasy about being seated next to a curvaceous action hero on a dragon slaying mission. Honestly if the women were less model-like, it would feel a heck of a lot more real for me and a heck of a lot more of an advance for women in Hollywood. For me this whole gender argument is merely paying lip service to a very traditional set of Hollywood ingredients which require seduction, attractive semi-nude vixens, car crashes and guns and is only another aspect of the marketing and hype. The pressure to be attractive at all costs and even under the most difficult set of circumstances is still the dominant value. It is the message that is sent to any young girl in the public and what she is being more or less told to live up to. Remember, it's only the attractive ones which have a chance of escape. That is hardly revolutionary. Otherwise it's only an old crone protecting the fruits and flowers of the next generation.
Click to expand...

The "attractive ones" were the only ones in sexual slavery, that's why they were escaping. So, it also makes sense that they would be attractive then. What Miller does differently here is his camera doesn't ogle them or linger on their form. That alone is pretty revolutionary, I'd say.

Imagine if the star was a plain jane, who was courageous and compelling and we were focused on what she says rather than what she wears (or doesnt). Now that would be a revolution for women.
Click to expand...

Her name is Furiosa, and not only is she not sexually exploited for the camera in any way, she's also an amputee. Seriously, read this if you didn't earlier: http://nospockdasgay.tumblr.com/post/119381643753/my-reaction-to-mad-max-fury-road-and-the-utter
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. Since I've already seen Mad Max and expect to go to the cinema at least two more times, I might just give it a go in 3D next.

I usually find 3D bad, especially on a first watch. The only good scene in avatar was the spore scene when they first went in the forest. Because the particles (spores) helped define the focal depth and the camera was still. I spent so much of avatar searching for depth because these 'picture box' exponents also seem to insist on constantly moving the camera with complex impossible compound moves (since they are usually also CGI heavy), too much to let you get your bearings in the z axis and often fail to match action depth across cuts. Plus I like to explore the frame in a movie, as interested in sets and costume as the actors but you can't do that in 3D without getting lost in z. If you don't choose to look where the director/editor are directing you to...you will not find focus. Some of the guys that followed the pioneers are doing better though. I can't list any offhand but I enjoyed a couple last year. Gravity was one.
 
refocusedmedia, agree on all points. Especially about it not being an american action movie. Charlize Theron is not american either which I think is the only reason she worked so well in this very australian action movie. Unless your definition of american is 'had a budget' or australian is 'kangaroos and boomerangs'. This movie was true to its australian exploitation roots. So many visual elements you probably didn't notice and even I may have not noticed yet had a strong subconscious connection to previous movies and my experience of living in this place. From the choice of vehicles to modify, to dialogue elements to storytelling. Whether consciously embedded or not there were nods to a lot of obscure filmsI could make connections to. I've no doubt Miller has seen them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top