Mad Max: Trailer looks awesome!

refocusedmedia said:
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
Click to expand...

Charlize Theron is your idea of a "Plain Jane"? Really?
Sorry mate, but now I definitely know we dont live on the same planet.

Say guys, how many of you have plain jane neighbors like Charlize Theron ? :happy:
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Charlize Theron is your idea of a "Plain Jane"? Really?
Sorry mate, but now I definitely know we dont live on the same planet.
Say guys, how many of you have plain jane neighbors like Charlize Theron ?
Click to expand...

Haha, no Theron is certainly gorgeous. But her character is more "plain" than most heroines. She's rough, dirty, a military leader, shaved head, part metal, no cleavage, bloodied and bruised, etc. Certainly much more "plain" than any American film heroine would be.
 
I saw it this weekend. Liked it, but didn't love it. Max (as others have stated) was conquered early on and became a passive individual in the story, just being drug along for his bodily fluids. Also - the whole idea of just running away into no where, only to turn back and fight the same group of bad asses all over again was absolutely stupid. Should have figured out a way to hold the wives for ransom and lure Immortan Joe out of his citadel and have a nifty coup. Which means you wouldn't get a two hour chase scene. Oh well. The production design, choreography, and cinematography were very spectacular. Part of the reason I enjoyed the picture.
 
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.
Click to expand...

This is the one I can't get past. I believe his marching orders were to put a bullet in the girl and cut the baby out of the womb*** ....and then he's snuggling with the redhead and he's part of the gang. Too much of a jump for me to be at peace with.

Also - the whole idea of just running away into no where, only to turn back and fight the same group of bad asses all over again was absolutely stupid.
Click to expand...

Agree. And yes, I feel like I'm missing something, what with the absolute critic gushing.....really, this was just an enjoyable two hour car chase for me. (and enjoyable it was!) I'm not saying that it's not more, I'm just not seeing it.

[EDIT: i had the dialogue all screwed up...if I have if it correct, Joe's line is something like "put a bullet in her skull (Furiosa?) and return my possessions."]
 
Last edited:
Nux's arc is all there and makes complete sense to me. He receives his marching orders and makes every attempt to fulfill them. He then not only fails in front of Immortan Joe, but then is an indirect cause of Joe's prize breeder being killed. He doesn't just abandon his faith because he stared into some girl's eyes, he realizes he can never go back to the Citadel and then receives a sympathetic hand from one of the girls in that moment of realization. The further he gets away from the warboy cult, the more of his humanity returns. After all, he's just a doped-up kid with nothing better to do when he starts out.

And they didn't just "run away into nowhere only to turn back and fight the same group of bad asses all over again" -- come on. They ran away to escape and go to a better place. That better place ended up no longer existing. They then set out across the salt flats until Max stopped them. He tells if they keep going across the salt flats, they'll find nothing and die, and that they have one chance to get what they want by going back the way they came and taking the Citadel while it is unguarded. After some convincing, Furiosa reluctantly agrees and they make a beeline for it.

I understand we're not used to nuanced storylines and character interactions in our action films, but this not our typical action films. Many complaints I see about this film are all there in the film, and it makes me wonder if some people bothered to pay attention at all to anything that wasn't an engine or an explosion.
 
I agree that Nux's transition is underwritten. I understand that the elements are there, but it does happen rather quickly and is a diametric turnaround. It is a little sparse just like Max's character.

I didn't have a problem with the "ride into desert, turn around & ride back" storyline. It is clearly told and informs the futility of much of the existence in the post-apocalyptic world.
 
They ran away to escape and go to a better place. That better place ended up no longer existing.
Click to expand...

Understood. I just feel this was covered enough in 2 & 3 and this franchise needs a fresh angle.

Agree or disagree on the finer points of Fury Road...this film certainly has warranted a lot of discussion!
 
Sure, there's only so much screen time afforded a minor/supporting character. But what other films would put as much care and nuance into a Nux-type individual like this film does?
 
While Nux's instantaneous and total change of allegiance with the batting of a pretty girls eyes feels abrupt and unrealistic...I can't shake the knowledge that every single time in life I did more or less exactly the same thing. Doubly so at his age. There's a truth to it viewed through the female story...different types of relationships with boys, men and patriarchs are defined throughout and Nux's arc in many ways is a true one. It still felt arbitrary but the more I think about it, it might be one of the more true to life representations in the film. How often does a young fellow completely and utterly abandon his boys in the early stages of a romance? Every bloody time I'm thinking!
 
refocusedmedia said:
And they didn't just "run away into nowhere only to turn back and fight the same group of bad asses all over again" -- come on. They ran away to escape and go to a better place. That better place ended up no longer existing. They then set out across the salt flats until Max stopped them. He tells if they keep going across the salt flats, they'll find nothing and die, and that they have one chance to get what they want by going back the way they came and taking the Citadel while it is unguarded. After some convincing, Furiosa reluctantly agrees and they make a beeline for it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Further, the argument against the entire concept of turning around has been somewhat bizarre. This turning point could have been handled better but the concept itself is as old as story and central to the Hero's Journey. Immortan Joe's base is Furiosa's Ordinary World, the desert her Special World. As the actual protagonist it is her storybound duty to return there and reclaim it with the powers and companions she has gained along the way. Her journey makes her whole and now able to defeat her enemy at the threshold (the stone arch) before returning to claim the Ordinary World on her return. In this respect it is very paint by numbers using the most prolific formula known to story.

So to suggest they shouldn't have gone back is almost illogical. The motivations were sensible and the supporting evidence had been solidly established along the way. There is only one place known to be capable of supporting life. I think the poor execution has more to do with the distraction of Max's arbitrary ghost girl visions (also confusing whose story it is) and that the moment of decision did not connect as solidly with the turning point of Furiosa's internal journey as it should have. To fit the template, if she was meant to reach the place of her birth the film should have started there.
 
The ghost girl was a reminder of the people he couldn't save or didn't try to. He then sees more people heading off to a futile death, and chooses to do something to try and save them, or help them save themselves. Is this specific aspect to the story & character a bit clunky overall? Perhaps, but I'll take a clunky effort over none at all.
 
I know. I'm just analysing. I felt it was an interesting element but ultimately bloat. I draw parallel to the two versions of Chronicles of Riddick which also had a similar vision element. The version with it was fuller and more interesting but lost its focus and pacing. The version that cut it completely was the better film. It's nice to be able to have both versions (sidenote: I know I might well be the only person who really enjoyed Chronicles). Twohy's comments around pacing being his driving philosophy as hard decisions get made seem to bear out in Max. Doesn't mean I want it out. If anything I want what I'm sure is on the cutting room floor back in the film.
 
KurtF said:
I saw it this weekend. Liked it, but didn't love it. Max (as others have stated) was conquered early on and became a passive individual in the story, just being drug along for his bodily fluids. Also - the whole idea of just running away into no where, only to turn back and fight the same group of bad asses all over again was absolutely stupid. Should have figured out a way to hold the wives for ransom and lure Immortan Joe out of his citadel and have a nifty coup. Which means you wouldn't get a two hour chase scene. Oh well. The production design, choreography, and cinematography were very spectacular. Part of the reason I enjoyed the picture.
Click to expand...

Max in this movie is merely a supporting character not the main protagonist, which is Furiosa. I think some people just couldn't come to grips with that and just really really wanted a Max main character. .
 
I need to watch this movie again. While I can see many of the "flaws" in the story that have been discussed, as the above link states, they didn't seem to matter. They should. But they don't. And I haven't put my finger on why. Is it that I'm so dazzled by the technique I'm willing to overlook them? Or is the technique itself making those flaws not flaws at all because it's operating on a different level. This was a film that played more like a piece of music to me than a narrative. Something non cerebral, more emotional and poetic, a visual symphony. I realize this could all sound like I'm making excuses for the film's narrative lapses. I've always been a story and script first person. But sometimes a film like this comes along that operates on such a high level of pure cinema that it makes me question the traditional approach to narrative, and see how limited the screenplay is as a form. As it's been detailed in many places, Miller didn't script this traditionally. He storyboarded the entire film. Miller also edits his rough cuts without sound or dialogue. He wants the visuals to tell the story first. The results are riveting...I need to see this movie again to see if it casts the same spell.
 
Batutta said:
I need to watch this movie again. While I can see many of the "flaws" in the story that have been discussed, as the above link states, they didn't seem to matter. They should. But they don't. And I haven't put my finger on why. Is it that I'm so dazzled by the technique I'm willing to overlook them? Or is the technique itself making those flaws not flaws at all because it's operating on a different level. This was a film that played more like a piece of music to me than a narrative. Something non cerebral, more emotional and poetic, a visual symphony. I realize this could all sound like I'm making excuses for the film's narrative lapses. I've always been a story and script first person. But sometimes a film like this comes along that operates on such a high level of pure cinema that it makes me question the traditional approach to narrative, and see how limited the screenplay is as a form. As it's been detailed in many places, Miller didn't script this traditionally. He storyboarded the entire film. Miller also edits his rough cuts without sound or dialogue. He wants the visuals to tell the story first. The results are riveting...I need to see this movie again to see if it casts the same spell.
Click to expand...

The best explanation I've seen is that Miller uses action to tell the story, whereas in most action films the story is put on pause while the action happens, and then the story resumes. It's like plot, plot, plot, plot stops while we watch a car chase, then plot resumes. But in Mad Max the car chase IS the plot, or the plot continues to unfold during the car chase. It is hard to put your finger on exactly why it is just so entertaining.
 
Gillvane said:
The best explanation I've seen is that Miller uses action to tell the story, whereas in most action films the story is put on pause while the action happens, and then the story resumes. It's like plot, plot, plot, plot stops while we watch a car chase, then plot resumes. But in Mad Max the car chase IS the plot, or the plot continues to unfold during the car chase. It is hard to put your finger on exactly why it is just so entertaining.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Speed basically did the same thing, and while I like Speed this feels different. The visual technique is on a level that most action films, and most other films just aren't at. There didn't seem to be a single traditionally staged scene (master, close-up, reverse). Each shot was something new, which I think comes from conceiving the film as a visual story first and not a literary one. Reminds me of Kurosawa at his best, but at warp speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top