¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote:T.J. wrote: ...I'd spend most of the movies thinking...This right here is your problem. You want to spend time thinking? Don't go to this movie. You want to be entertained? SWITCH YOUR STUPID BRAIN OFF AND GO SEE IT! It was dumb. It was awesome. I want to see it again, possibly more than once.
Do you also enjoy watching the Kardashians?
I'll check it out once it free on Amazon Prime.
In reply to T.J.:
If they'd get involved in more fiery explosions and car chases I'm sure I would. 
In reply to ¯_(ツ)_/¯:
I bet if they thought it would make them a buck they would start blowing stuff up. Let's hope they don't go that route.
T.J. wrote: I bet if they thought it would make them a buck they would start blowing....
I am pretty sure that is how their road to fame got started. 
ddavidv wrote: But when you give it the title of Mad Max there is a certain level of - something - you come to expect. It doesn't sound like this film delivers that.
Having recently watched the original Mad Max AGAIN, I realized how truly awful the original is. The plot is paper thin, the action is non-existent, half the movie is literally a camera strapped to a vehicle moving fast down boring, flat two lane blacktop.
There is no suspense, if anything you are lost and confused trying to figure out what exactly the berkeley is going on the whole movie. Its so childish, which I get the movie came out in 1979, but there are TONS of 70's and 80's films that are great. Seriously, Mad Max was a b-movie AT BEST back THEN, it wouldn't come out in theatres nowadays even if done to modern standards but with the original dialogue and directing.
I've never watched the 2nd or 3rd, but I have them now and will this week.
In comparison, Fury Road was god damn amazing. Sure, the plot was straightforward, but it was super well-defined. Them going back to the SPOILER was a nice twist, I (suspending my disbelief and being in the moment of the movie) always assumed they wouldn't. No, it wasn't a dramatic DUN DUN DUN moment, but it was exactly what the movie called for. The characters impressed their "personas" on you, so you didn't even need to know what their names were; they were defined by their roles.
Compared to 90% of the superhero movies that come out, and the garbage that is the Transformer series, this movie is excellent. Hell, it's better than 50% of "serious" dramas that come out.
And whoever the hell played Max knocked it out of the berkeleying ballpark. Also, the directing was superb. Nothing was forced, everything was done JUST right.
sesto elemento wrote: Charlize Theron
I guess if you like 12 year old boys I mean, yes she is beautiful, but her beauty comes from her power of character (both on and off screen). She's pretty normal otherwise, just a regular skinny chick IMO.
SPOILER
rather than run away in hope of a better tomorrow, they turned the berk around and went back to make one. I loved it.
This behind the scenes short is awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9kK-CbqH0k
It is amazing how they shot some of the scenes. Flying NFL wire cam anyone?
No, the original Mad Max wasn't that great but it was a whole different direction for movies at the time. George Miller did a LOT with that razor thin budget. When he came back with 'The Road Warrior', he had a bigger budget, was able to do much more and yes it's a better movie than the original.
'Thunderdome' shows what happens when a bunch of money people get their fingers into a good premise. George Miller may have directed it, but in reality he had nothing to do with that one, the studio (Warner Bros) made sure to get it done their way and it shows. It also didn't help that Miller's partner Byron Kennedy was killed in a helicopter crash while scouting film locations for Thunderdome; Miller was said to have lost interest in the whole thing after that. The best part of that whole movie was Tina Turner as Aunty Entity.
[Shallow Hal] Charlize Theron isn't really all that great looking [/Shallow Hal] but her range of performance is AMAZING. Go back and watch 'Monster', then compare it to her later work, you'll see what I mean. I'm definitely a fan of hers.
Yes, this is Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos in 'Monster'.
HiTempguy wrote: ...half the movie is literally a camera strapped to a vehicle moving fast down boring, flat two lane blacktop....
Argh, I really hate to see something like this posted here. This is the sort of thing that makes directors hand a camera to the every popular epileptic cameraman we have these days and do jump cuts ever 2.5 seconds...
Here is one of those boring scenes you are talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovhw-E9gRfU
Over 100 mph like this...
That comment made me sad 
I guess this is what we get to look forward to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYEdpWCkT6s
And this isn't even a really bad example (needs more shaky camera and quick cuts).
If you do not want to see it, don't, but please don't speak as though it is an educated decision, because if you haven't seen it, your decision is baseless.
I saw it and was thoroughly entertained, I recommend 3D and will try IMax next time
In reply to aussiesmg:
That is the same sort of logic used by meth heads when they tell non-users "don't knock it till you try it." Some things I don't have to experience to know they are not for me. You can call it an uneducated decision if you want, but there are other ways to learn than just through experience.
aircooled wrote:HiTempguy wrote: ...half the movie is literally a camera strapped to a vehicle moving fast down boring, flat two lane blacktop....Argh, I really hate to see something like this posted here. This is the sort of thing that makes directors hand a camera to the every popular epileptic cameraman we have these days and do jump cuts ever 2.5 seconds... Here is one of those boring scenes you are talking about:
Oh get over yourself. Whoopdee doo, 100mph on a bike on perfectly smooth pavement.
There was simply no need for a minute of that. It added nothing to the film besides filler. Its not my fault the director couldn't get good shots to make the 100mph feel fast, but what was so great about that? There was nothing to take away from it that was cinematically masterful, and I hope you've never bitched about Ken Block because thats a lot more exciting than the equivalent of a dude with a gopro low on his bike/bumper.
It was boring. I also have always found F1 boring as well (to demonstrate my interests and mindset). Its not that it was a minute long, its that it had zero entertainment value. I would have been just as mad if it was a one minute scene of a guy playing the berkeleying bagpipes
In reply to T.J.:
So watching an action flick is the equivalent to using an addictive, soul and family destroying drug. Whew thanks for the heads up, I better go get admitted into rehab.
In reply to aussiesmg:
That was 100% not my point and you know it.
i like where this thread is going
My brother went out and saw it last night and said it was awesome. I am hoping to see it saturday night.
HITLER!
..And we're done.
OK, went to see it last night with the eldest kid while wife babysat grandson.
I'm not giving it the 'OMG, best thing ever, gotta see it 100 times' review. But it is totally worth seeing. Let's face it, no matter how much we try to dress up the moral feel good side of the plot, there really isn't much in the way of a plot. It's just an excuse for a two hour car chase. And as a two hour car chase it's brilliant. You absolutely have to see it on the big screen. Some of the action scenes are just amazing, you're holding your breath as they unfold. The cars are really stunning. I especially love the 'Gigahorse', 'Nux's car'and the 'Doof wagon' (that I call the 'Metal wagon' coz it's blaring out metal) Also I like the revised Interseptor after it was stolen and cleaned up (not a spoiler)
Really, the detail on the cars and sets are totally worth it. Screw it, as car guys and gals this is a must see. Forget 'girls gone wild', this is 'Rat rods gone wild'
One thing, I'm actually surprised it got an R Rating. There may be a cumulative effect of a lot of violence, but there is no single act that is worse than may PG13 films and less in the way of nudity. The violence is mainly implied. You see people falling from vehicles, you get a shot of them hitting the deck, but the you just see the vehicle bumping up and down implying they are being run over,rather than seeing them getting mangled by the wheels. Ditto the other death and dismemberment, it's implied rather than actually seen
BTW there's a good officail site with pics and some (in character) details of the cars here.
In reply to HiTempguy:
I guess you don't like 'Two lane blacktop' or 'LeMans' as movies either as they are just boring shots of cars going straight for mile after mile. There is artistry in those shots. Sorry as a car guy you can't appreciate that.
In reply to T.J.: I do know it, but then again I didn't bring a soul destroying drug into the discussion about an action packed, car movie either. 
Oh, I would love to hear about one alternative way to learn without experience. 
Ok, not sure why I am taking your bait on this, but if you really want to continue this:
If you are correct and one can only learn by experiencing something, then the only way you could know that meth is soul destroying is if you used it and it destroyed your soul. I'm guessing that you are not a current or former meth-head, but yet you understand that it is a bad drug, thus you were able to learn that without using the drug. That's not too hard is it? Now, using the same line of thinking, I can deduce that this movie is not one that I would enjoy and I can know that without having to see it first. Both of these are educated decisions.
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie but for the life of me I can't figure out why you think that it is not ok for me to not like it.
In reply to HiTempguy:
The original Mad Max was typical of movies from that era where dialog was minimal and the plot was more "implied" through cinematic styling. A happy ending with nice and tidy plot closure was not a given. Often the movies simply... ended.
They can be hard to watch if you're used to more traditional movies. Some are down-right painful (The Mack comes to mind). Another one often loved by car guys is Vanishing Point.
Hopefully I'll find the time to watch Fury Road while it's still in theaters.
HiTempguy wrote: ...Whoopdee doo, 100mph on a bike on perfectly smooth pavement. There was simply no need for a minute of that. It added nothing to the film besides filler. Its not my fault the director couldn't get good shots to make the 100mph feel fast...
I am not saying Mad Max stands up that well today, but in consideration of how it was made and when it was made, it is pretty impressive. And yes, 70's movies are typically rather slow. It's a style / taste thing, if you don't like it, there you go (most people used to modern movies find them pretty intolerable).
The 100 mph was not an "OMG 100 mph is sooo fast" comment, it was related to the rather large picture below it. You may not be impressed by 100 mph, but if I put you on the back of a bike, gave you a 15 lbs camera that you hold with 2 hands (!) then had that bike drive down a road a 100 mph I suspect you would be impressed. (and you would thank all that is holy that the road was smooth and reasonably straight)
As someone else noted, I guess you find the car scenes in Bullet, LeMans and GrandPrix all pretty "boring" also. All are shot in a mostly perspective / realistic manner. I was just lamenting that your opinion is likely popular and means that it is unlikely we will see that sort of production again (see the newer Gone in 60 Seconds as a prime example).
I would be very curious as to what you would consider an example of a good and interesting depiction of cars and speed on film.
I really hope you don't find this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyVXqua8XhY
better then this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31JgMAHVeg0
(second half, with some long "boring" shots):
I suspect many people here hate "Rendezvous."
In reply to Appleseed:
A friend on mine used to have it on VHS and we would watch it together. I watched it online last year or so and I still liked it. Off to the you tubes....
Appleseed wrote: I suspect many people here hate "Rendezvous."
At Six Flags over Georgia they used to play that in the "Chevy Show" theater. Think 3/4 scale IMAX. It was awesome.
You'll need to log in to post.
