Mad Max: Fury Road

[Something Sexy]

Best movie of 2015 thus far.

 

[RIDDICK]

It deserves to be a success as its a pretty balsy flick in nowadays tale and boring action flicks.

But it WAS basically a boring action flick. There are no redeeming qualities outside of glorious action scenes and crazy soundtrack.

Try watching it again without the expectation that Max will be the main character.

The title says "Mad Max: Fury Road", not "The Chronicles of Mad Max: Furiosa, Immortan Joe and the Truck".
Max is the only character during the first six minutes of film.

 

[jye4ever]

While entertaining it started to not be thrilling because they went too overboard with trying to out do The Road Warrior in the action scenes just because modern technology allowed it to be done.

Less is always more.

I expect that kind of weightless crap in a superhero movie, not a Mad Max movie!

I have definately warmed up to the movie though, there is excitement to be had and Furiosa's relationship with Max and Nux's arc were all well handled.

Although, her redemption would've carried more weight had we found out that she was the one responsible for bringing Joe's women to him. She would trick woman into trusting her and then betraying them by bringing them into slavery for Joe.

Then her rescuing the woman would've had more impact, her attempt at redemption would've felt meaningful and had a purpose.

Bullet guy arc was silly though.

 

[Bo Shrek]

Watched for the first time.

If your not a MAD MAX guy (having some sort of expectation of what your getting into) then don’t believe the hype. Your mind will be saying “WTF…I heard this was really good”! This movie will NOT be for you. I watched the half on Monday then finished it on Tuesday (busy schedule). On Monday I had WTF moments…WTF is going on get to the story. On Tuesday waiting for my wife to start the second half I went back and watched some of the scene. This movie is not about the story its about the segments and scenes and getting to know the details of the sequences. While waiting for my wife I went back and watched the “spike cars” sequence and I liked it. The reveal of the wives and I liked it. After we finished I went back and watched other sequences. In the end I did enjoy this movie understanding what it is but to be honest if I had watched this in theatres, I don’t think I would have come out saying this was the best movie..”holy ****”. I would have come out saying WTF was that!!!!!

 

[GasparZizou]

This movie is very much about the story. and is also about the action. If you say there's no story you can never EVER complain about Nolan again because you need the over exposition for you to see the story, Max is the main character, as is Furiosa. No, Max is not a "minor character at best", that is simply incorrect.

If it was a "boring action flick" or "Meh" then I don't know what to tell you, you just don't like action.

I expect that kind of weightless crap in a superhero movie, not a Mad Max movie!

Although, her redemption would've carried more weight had we found out that she was the one responsible for bringing Joe's women to him. She would trick woman into trusting her and then betraying them by bringing them into slavery for Joe.

Then her rescuing the woman would've had more impact, her attempt at redemption would've felt meaningful and had a purpose.

That doesn't happen in the comics does it? Cause it makes no sense, she doesn't look for redemption because she's directly responsible for the slavery of the wives, that would be tacky and forced.

Bullet guy arc was silly though.

We don't see that arc though, we only see the end and he's not a character by then.

 

[jye4ever]

That boomerang kill is awesome, not weightless. No cgi involved.

I would take a forced redemption, even though I don't think it would feel forced, over not knowing what she's seeking redemption for.

Not knowing made me not care about her journey.

 

[Khev]

It was definitely unusual to tell a redemption tale without knowing what Furiosa did in the first place. Her "Remember me!?" line really didn't have any weight to it because we simply have no idea what she was referencing. Obviously her ambiguous past was deliberate but I think they probably should have gone the "Unforgiven" route and at least paid some lip service to what she had done.

 

[Wor-Gar]

One of the things I remember people really liking about Road Warrior was that is was so devoid of dialogue (except Papagalo). Of course I was a kid when I saw it for the first time. But the inference on things was one of the appeals. Like Star Wars, there's alot to assume and bits you can pick up on and interpret. Fury Road very much follows that style.

You could easily assume Furiosa feels guilty for aiding this barbarian in his rise to power; or that she despises him so much that she wants to hurt him where it counts (the missing arm could testify to torture); or because she's a woman she connects with the "property" label; or many other options. The vagueness opens it up, rather than spoon-feeds an answer. Personally, I didn't go to see a redemption movie anyway, so that little subplot isn't the driving force for me. That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers.

 

[abake]

One of the things I remember people really liking about Road Warrior was that is was so devoid of dialogue (except Papagalo). Of course I was a kid when I saw it for the first time. But the inference on things was one of the appeals. Like Star Wars, there's alot to assume and bits you can pick up on and interpret. Fury Road very much follows that style.

You could easily assume Furiosa feels guilty for aiding this barbarian in his rise to power; or that she despises him so much that she wants to hurt him where it counts (the missing arm could testify to torture); or because she's a woman she connects with the "property" label; or many other options. The vagueness opens it up, rather than spoon-feeds an answer. Personally, I didn't go to see a redemption movie anyway, so that little subplot isn't the driving force for me. That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers.

Couldn't agree more.
I didn't need any explanation to Furiosa's arc, it just seemed to make perfect sense that whatever the reasons she sided with IJ in the first place, it was time to get away from the sick bastard.

 

[GasparZizou]

One of the things I remember people really liking about Road Warrior was that is was so devoid of dialogue (except Papagalo). Of course I was a kid when I saw it for the first time. But the inference on things was one of the appeals. Like Star Wars, there's alot to assume and bits you can pick up on and interpret. Fury Road very much follows that style.

You could easily assume Furiosa feels guilty for aiding this barbarian in his rise to power; or that she despises him so much that she wants to hurt him where it counts (the missing arm could testify to torture); or because she's a woman she connects with the "property" label; or many other options. The vagueness opens it up, rather than spoon-feeds an answer. Personally, I didn't go to see a redemption movie anyway, so that little subplot isn't the driving force for me. That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers.

That boomerang kill is awesome, not weightless. No cgi involved.

I would take a forced redemption, even though I don't think it would feel forced, over not knowing what she's seeking redemption for.

Not knowing made me not care about her journey.

It was awesome, but it is pretty weightless and random, there aren't any random or weightless bits of action or deaths of prominent characters in FR, CGI isn't automatically equal weightless, certainly not in the case of FR.

Yeah it would feel forced, given how it's hinted she was a wife herself, if anything that is where the redemption aspect comes from, I don't see any possible way she would be directly responsible for perpetuating any of that.

 

[CAhobbit]

One of the things I remember people really liking about Road Warrior was that is was so devoid of dialogue (except Papagalo). Of course I was a kid when I saw it for the first time. But the inference on things was one of the appeals. Like Star Wars, there's alot to assume and bits you can pick up on and interpret. Fury Road very much follows that style.

You could easily assume Furiosa feels guilty for aiding this barbarian in his rise to power; or that she despises him so much that she wants to hurt him where it counts (the missing arm could testify to torture); or because she's a woman she connects with the "property" label; or many other options. The vagueness opens it up, rather than spoon-feeds an answer. Personally, I didn't go to see a redemption movie anyway, so that little subplot isn't the driving force for me. That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers.

Agreed.

It's evident (at least I thought it was upon watching the movie) that she was a trusted individual to Immortan Joe, so I just assumed that in order to get that kind of position she had to do things she wasn't proud about and so on.

I saw the movie over the summer in theaters and then just recently on Blu-Ray and hands down this is the best movie I've seen this year as I type this. That could change but for now everything about Mad Max: Fury Road hit all the right points for me as a movie watcher (great visuals, good casting, engaging story).

 

[Khev]

One of the things I remember people really liking about Road Warrior was that is was so devoid of dialogue (except Papagalo). Of course I was a kid when I saw it for the first time. But the inference on things was one of the appeals. Like Star Wars, there's alot to assume and bits you can pick up on and interpret. Fury Road very much follows that style.

You could easily assume Furiosa feels guilty for aiding this barbarian in his rise to power; or that she despises him so much that she wants to hurt him where it counts (the missing arm could testify to torture); or because she's a woman she connects with the "property" label; or many other options. The vagueness opens it up, rather than spoon-feeds an answer. Personally, I didn't go to see a redemption movie anyway, so that little subplot isn't the driving force for me. That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers.

Now, now, don't go off with a straw man equating *any* exposition *at all* with spoon-fed drivel that should only appear in children's comics. Makes you seem a bit irrational and fan-boyish. We knew what Max was atoning for (not saving those who trusted him) so by your own logic his backstory should have been saved for comic books as well.

Furiosa was a trusted lieutenant of a really bad guy so obviously it isn't hard to assume she did lots of bad things in his service. But she never, ever makes her quest for redemption a personal matter between her and Joe until the moment she kills him. I *did* like the ambiguity but I liked it most when *everything* was left to the imagination. I'm just not sure that Joe was even worthy of a "smile you son of a *****/you're terminated ****er" one-liner as he was killed. Especially one that just comes out of the blue. I would have preferred she either not say anything (which would be consistent with Max's silent kills of Toecutter, Wez, and Humungus) or if she HAD to say something make it consistent with the film itself ("witness this," or whatever.)

Awesome movies can still have flaws man.

 

[Deckard]

 

[GasparZizou]

Now, now, don't go off with a straw man equating *any* exposition *at all* with spoon-fed drivel that should only appear in children's comics. Makes you seem a bit irrational and fan-boyish.

Huh?

...That's not to say that subplots and deeper exploration of stories isn't a good thing; it is. But not always necessary to tie every bow...

Furiosa was a trusted lieutenant of a really bad guy so obviously it isn't hard to assume she did lots of bad things in his service. But she never, ever makes her quest for redemption a personal matter between her and Joe until the moment she kills him. I *did* like the ambiguity but I liked it most when *everything* was left to the imagination. I'm just not sure that Joe was even worthy of a "smile you son of a *****/you're terminated ****er" one-liner as he was killed. Especially one that just comes out of the blue. I would have preferred she either not say anything (which would be consistent with Max's silent kills of Toecutter, Wez, and Humungus) or if she HAD to say something make it consistent with the film itself ("witness this," or whatever.)

It's not a stretch at all to assume there's a strong personal component against IJ in Furiosa's motivation, especially if you take into consideration she was a wife, then there has to be a personal component. So "Remember me?" is pretty perfect.

"Witness this" could work in a Fast and Furious movie, not in FR imo.

 

[Deckard]

It obviously became personal for Furiosa when she realized their was no green place or many mothers. When Joe pulls up alongside her and taunts her after stealing Toast out of the cab... up to that point the plan was simple, outrun them and hide. Some of you are trying way too hard to overthink it.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Now, now, don't go off with a straw man equating *any* exposition *at all* with spoon-fed drivel that should only appear in children's comics. Makes you seem a bit irrational and fan-boyish.

Really don't understand that. I never said *any*. But I did allude that some things are better off un-said. Like the first part of your post.

 

[jye4ever]

 

[Khev]

Really don't understand that. I never said *any*. But I did allude that some things are better off un-said. Like the first part of your post.

No you said "But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers." No one ever claimed that every bow needed to be tied. Hence your reply being a bit of a straw man.

It obviously became personal for Furiosa when she realized their was no green place or many mothers.

No it didn't. Her response to the revelation of no green place or many mothers wasn't to get back at Joe. She wanted to head across the salt flats. Max's *pragmatism* put her in direct conflict with Joe at that point and only because he wouldn't get out of her way. That's why I think it would have been a little cooler if he was just an obstacle that was unworthy of a cliched "eff you" moment.

 

[Wor-Gar]

No you said "But not always necessary to tie every bow. Anyway, they have comic books to explain for kids who need absolute answers." No one ever claimed that every bow needed to be tied. Hence your reply being a bit of a straw man.

It's right there, Khev -- "not always necessary". And no one needed to claim anything, my post was not a defense of a particular post. It was a comment, an opinion. "Not every bow needs to be tied." Why are you arguing as if in defense. Did you take personal offense to the 'comic book' comment? I do believe that it has been said that the Mad Max comic will shed light on events in the movie, thus making things more clear... for people who need that.

And what's with the 'straw man' bit, you always throw it around even when it doesn't apply.

 

[Khev]

And what's with the 'straw man' bit, you always throw it around even when it doesn't apply.

Wha? *does a search* sees that Khev hasn't used the word "straw" in a post since 2012 regarding something about Bane being the last straw in TDKR. Looks like you've got me confused with someone else.