Mad Max: Fury Road

Standard Toaster

Pretty cool from Lotus

Duggy747

A few reviews are coming out

Critical acclaim so far, saying that Miller has nailed it as a Mad Max movie.

johnny_ultimate

Ha:

David Ehrlich wrote:

In an age of weightless movie spectacles, here’s a movie that feels like it was made by kidnapping $150 million of studio money, fleeing with it to the Namibian desert, and sending footage back to Hollywood like the amputated body parts of a ransomed hostage.

ktulu123

Can't wait for this now, just booked tickets for the IMAX in town on Sunday!

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'm in support of this.

George Miller is a fantastic director and has proven again and again he knows what he's doing.

Tom Hardy, anyone who has seen Bronson knows he's a fantastic actor and is worth a vote of confidence.

Couldnt give two f*cks about charlize theron and dont care about her or her role.


good thing is its a sequel and not a remake.

Said it on page 1 will stand vindicated at the end. I never doubt George Miller

johnny_ultimate

I don't know, will have to be truly special to live up to Happy Feet 2

Tony EH

Exactly. Let's not be getting carried away. His back catalog ain't that great.

bur

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Said it on page 1 will stand vindicated at the end. I never doubt George Miller

'Couldnt give two f*cks about charlize theron and dont care about her or her role.'

Any particular reason for that? Is her role just not very interesting or?

BlitzKrieg

bur wrote: »

'Couldnt give two f*cks about charlize theron and dont care about her or her role.'

Any particular reason for that? Is her role just not very interesting or?

That was said before anything of her role was revealed and there was a lot of bitching that she was some studio demand as a post above mine had said

Though Charlize Theron is in it which means "chick money" for the cinema tickets.

I mean it was 6 years ago

Liam McPoyle

Spoiler free review from the usually reliable Fangoria. I had a fear it was going to be CGI heavy too but as per the below, its in the main real stunts and effects. Huzzah.

For fans of horror filmmaking, it’s no surprise that practically achieved cinematic magic has resonated so deeply within our sensibilities. After all, if something must be seen to be believed, then by seeing it, we believe it in one way or another. But beyond that, the ambition behind a practically achieved stunt or SFX moment is all the more convincing when we know that there’s an element of danger to the procedure, which suddenly makes the stakes much more real and makes our performers all the more believable, even in the most heightened universe.

Of course, there’s no universe more heightened than that of the MAD MAX universe, and for it’s first (and hopefully not last) excursion within the 21st century, director George Miller has redefined ambitious practical spectacles, offering a heart-racing and breath-taking adventure tale with a demented and horrific edge. As much as the film is a relentless fever dream, it’s also a nightmarish vision of chaos and anarchy as well as a action-packed redemption tale with utter disregard for the laws of physics. In simpler terms, it’s an orchestra of badass practical stunts, injecting the character of Mad Max in his biggest and most unwieldy chase yet, which says something considering the chases in both MAD MAX and THE ROAD WARRIOR.

Yet in FURY ROAD, perhaps even more impressive than the extreme stunts is how individual the film feels from its predecessors, all the while still incorporating elements from those films to build upon their influence. George Miller’s approach, while familiar, feels fresh and exciting, incorporating the fun of ROAD WARRIOR, the humor of BEYOND THUNDERDOME and the emotion of MAD MAX within FURY ROAD while crafting something much more colorful, wild and surreal in vision. This even extends to Max Rockatansky himself; Tom Hardy’s quiet take on the character adopts a whole new voice, physicality and philosophy, and if it wasn’t for his rugged survivalist instincts, this could have been an original character altogether and work just as well. But FURY ROAD is the next stage in the evolution of MAD MAX, both as a series and as a character, and brings the wild world of the insane and desperate on a grander scale than ever before.

Miller also has the benefit of having an incredible team behind him, as FURY ROAD is also the most visually engaging and monstrous entry in the MAD MAX franchise to date. His most ingenious addition to the crew of FURY ROAD might be that of Oscar-Winning cinematographer John Seale, who horror fans know for his brilliant and brutal visual composition in films like THE HITCHER and DREAMCATCHER; Seale paints a MAD MAX universe more vividly than any entry before it, and makes the monstrous and mutated elements of the universe appear that much more terrifying. Junkie XL’s score sets a perfectly frenetic and dynamic sound behind equally chaotic action and images, which further allows the audience to immerse themselves in the on-screen universe. And the myriad members of the intense SFX, Stunt and production crew all deserve equal praise in their endeavors to bring Miller’s shocking vision to life.

Luckily, FURY ROAD also offers a great cast of performers in high gear (pardon the pun), who offer memorable and surprisingly deep characters throughout the cast. While Hardy is front and center as the haunted Max, Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult are equally incredible and eccentric in their own ways as his co-leads, each with their own bizarre, tragic and chaotic path to redemption. As for the rest of their crew, Zoe Kravitz, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton all admirably play their characters with bold individuality, making them feel as integral to Max’s journey as opposed to mere damsels in distress. And for Miller’s rogue gallery of villains, FURY ROAD rivals ROAD WARRIOR and MAD MAX for the best baddies to go head-to-head with Rockatansky, whether it be the gloriously brazen Hugh Keays-Byrne, the eager and persistent Josh Helman, the intimidating Nathan Jones and even the relatively weird Angus Sampson.

In a world where modern blockbusters rely on CGI (which does appear throughout FURY ROAD in small doses) to craft their big budget action, George Miller’s experienced mindset reminds audiences that we still crave for the real thing. Whether its tankers and trucks exploding at a hundred miles per hour, actors jumping from vehicle to vehicle in raging sandstorms and narrow escapes from collapsing canyons, old dogs don’t need new tricks to drop an audiences jaws. But for all the spectacle and craziness on display, Miller still knows that the biggest crash sequence is only impressive if you care about who is- or is not- in that crash; in fact, Max’s most badass moment happens completely off-screen, yet in the aftermath, we’re reminded about exactly why we loved and cared for Max in the first place. Despite his better instincts, Max is one of the last humane humans in his world, and every exhilarating brush with death gives us another reason to hope he lives to fight another day.

Source.

Colour me very very excited.

SouthTippBass

The reviews so far have been overwhelmingly positive, I admit I never thought this movie would be any good. Really looking forward to seeing this now

titan18

I was intending to avoid this but after seeing all the positive reviews, I think it might be worth a trip.

kearneybobs

Really want to see this movie now but I've never seen the other three. Watching the first Mad Max at the moment.

Setting isn't really as post apocalyptic as I thought it would have been. Does it change as the movies go on?
Edit: Seems like it's more dystopian than post apocalyptic. Have no idea where that idea came from. Maybe I was lead to believe it to be like that from how the trailers for the newest film look.

thegreengoblin

kearneybobs wrote: »

Really want to see this movie now but I've never seen the other three. Watching the first Mad Max at the moment.

Setting isn't really as post apocalyptic as I thought it would have been. Does it change as the movies go on?
Edit: Seems like it's more dystopian than post apocalyptic. Have no idea where that idea came from. Maybe I was lead to believe it to be like that from how the trailers for the newest film look.

First one is more that society has pretty much broken down in the outback but you still have the MFP trying to maintain law and order. In between the two films something major happens and we're into the the post-apocalyptic world where everyone makes their own rules. Let us know what you think of the films!

kearneybobs

Onto the second one now.
Setting seems to be something I am more familiar with now. Lots of deserts, dust, buggies etc.

Enjoyed the first one. Seems to have laid the foundation for the world I'm seeing in the second one. It's the next logical step, at least in terms of the devolution of society.

Is the third on really that bad?

thegreengoblin

It's nowhere near as bad as some would lead you to believe. That said, it's not in the same ballpark as the first two. Anyway, you be the judge and see for yourself!

Faith+1

kearneybobs wrote: »

Onto the second one now.
Setting seems to be something I am more familiar with now. Lots of deserts, dust, buggies etc.

Enjoyed the first one. Seems to have laid the foundation for the world I'm seeing in the second one. It's the next logical step, at least in terms of the devolution of society.

Is the third on really that bad?

It's not bad by today's standards. I loved the first half but thought it got a little too Peter Panish in act 2. Still watchable but no-one near as good as 1&2.

JamesC7

WOW! An average of rating of 9 across 35 reviews on RT. Holy fcuk.

Looper007

JamesC7 wrote: »

WOW! An average of rating of 9 across 35 reviews on RT. Holy fcuk.

Yeah its got a lot of 5 star reviews and the lowest I've seen would be 4/5. Some are calling it the best action film of the decade (if it gets close to the Raid films I be very happy indeed). Lets hope it does great business in the cinema that's the biggest worry I have for it Cause it be nice to get a Tom Hardy Mad Max Trilogy.

Adamantium

I've noticed all the posters and trailers for this have Charlize Theron front and center. Even the front sheet has Max in the background with a grill over his mouth.


We waited YEARS for a Mad Max film for this generation, but I'm not so sure it is anymore. :rolleyes:

bucketybuck

Business Cat wrote: »

Spoiler free review from the usually reliable Fangoria. I had a fear it was going to be CGI heavy too but as per the below, its in the main real stunts and effects. Huzzah.

I expected just the opposite, all the buzz I've heard about this film since last year has been about the practical effects, it was well known that they had actually built all those weird vehicles and brought them all out to the desert to be destroyed!

Really looking forward to this!

cloud493

Can I go into this without seeing the other three? Apparently its a soft reboot of sorts?

Liam McPoyle

cloud493 wrote: »

Can I go into this without seeing the other three? Apparently its a soft reboot of sorts?

I would imagine it will draw alot of non fans of the originals in and they will in turn discover the originals.

AFAIK its a stand alone movie but from a purely movie viewing PoV Id recommend checking them out.

Part one introduces Max and the world that is going down the drain.

Part two ramps everything in part 1 up to the nth degree and has one of the best movie villans ever committed to celluloid in The Lord Humongous, Blaine before Blaine existed.




I havnt watched part 3 in years but I distinctly remember watching it a an 11 year old and thinking how terrible it was. If 11 year old me thought that I shudder to think what 36 year old me would make of it!

:pac:

peckerhead

Jesus, I feel old. I was 15 when the original came out!

I suspect I'll feel faintly age-inappropriate queuing up for this, but I don't particularly give a shîte...

And yes, Thunderdome was that bad, for its time or any time. Just skip it.

Looper007

Adamantium wrote: »

I've noticed all the posters and trailers for this have Charlize Theron front and center. Even the front sheet has Max in the background with a grill over his mouth.


We waited YEARS for a Mad Max film for this generation, but I'm not so sure it is anymore. :rolleyes:

The rumours around is they (warner bros) don't think Tom Hardy is a big name box office star, that's why you see Charlize Theron front and centre. Hardy is on the posters though and plenty front and centre.

DoYouEvenLift

Adamantium wrote: »

I've noticed all the posters and trailers for this have Charlize Theron front and center. Even the front sheet has Max in the background with a grill over his mouth.


We waited YEARS for a Mad Max film for this generation, but I'm not so sure it is anymore. :rolleyes:

I heard some feminist was brought in to influence the writing and make it more of a "girl power" flick and that Max is basically a side kick in his own movie lol. I'll still go see this but it doesn't really surprise me if this is the case. It would mean that Hollywood are so incapable of just coming up with their own original ideas for movies with strong female leads that not only will they just lazily reboot and rehash classic movies with all female casts but they will now also essentially hijack classic franchises lol.


For anyone who misconstrues me and considers this critique misogynistic simply because I'm critiquing something that happens to be about women: I have absolutely no issue with movies having female leads as long as they are original franchises in the same way new movies with male leads are original franchises. Simply remaking classic movies (which is already bad enough) and just changing the leads to be women is a very lazy and pandering attempt at trying to be original (e.g. Ghostbusters). There are so many stories that could be written to have good female leads that haven't been done yet. Look at Kill Bill, they are two very highly rated movies because of how absolutely crazy and fun they are and are a perfect example of how movies with female casts can be executed well.

kearneybobs

Quite enjoyed this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTN29EvINIQ

e_e

I can already sense some people with weirdly anti-feminist agendas getting bent out of shape without having seen the movie. :P

I've not really any affinity for the Mad Max character (I've the blu-ray trilogy on the way which I'm really eager to see) but I for one really welcome a new spin on old material being taken, don't get why we should be treating these films like sacred cows that can't be redefined or given a fresh perspective in any way. The originals will always be there plus if the responses are anything to go by so far it sounds like they really pulled it off.

DoYouEvenLift

e_e wrote: »

I can already sense some people with weirdly anti-feminist agendas getting bent out of shape without having seen the movie. :P

I've not really any affinity for the Mad Max character (I've the blu-ray trilogy on the way which I'm really eager to see) but I for one really welcome a new spin on old material being taken, don't get why we should be treating these films like sacred cows that can't be redefined or given a fresh perspective in any way. The originals will always be there plus if the responses are anything to go by so far it sounds like they really pulled it off.

Not very weird when you think about it. And simply sharing opinions and criticisms considered 'an agenda' now. Lol!

johnny_ultimate

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Not very weird when you think about it. And simply sharing opinions and criticisms considered 'an agenda' now. Lol!

I'm a bit unclear what your actual criticism is I have to admit. I find the idea that having a strongly written female character added to an existing franchise is considered 'hijacking' said franchise a bit troubling. Surely giving any sequel a creative kick by introducing an interesting or well performed new character, regardless of gender, can only be a positive thing? If a franchise is considered too 'manly' or macho for such a thing to be possible, well frankly then it's a prime candidate for a shake-up.

It's all academic considering we haven't seen the film. But let's be honest there's still a significant gender divide in Hollywood, so to me if a filmmaker or even studio can organically and convincingly add a female perspective to a traditionally male-dominated series more power to them, it should only be encouraged. To dismiss that very idea as mere cynicism is IMO unfair and even a bit regressive. I'll go further: it's these sorts of existing franchises where change is most vital and important.