#425 If you look carefully (and know something about guns), you can see that Muldoon's gun is not cocked and has the safety on right before he's killed in JP. Poor Muldoon. (From: Rexy!) Prev - Next
"Mad Max: Fury Road" On 12/21/2012 at 10:27:18 PM, Dac started the thread: Minus Gibson, for anyone who didn't already know that. Tom "Bane" Hardy is Max now. First image was just released.
"We've seen the creepy creatures George Miller has been creating for his Mad Max sequel Mad Max: Fury Road, but we've yet to see the main character. Will Tom Hardy be able to fill the sandy boots of former Mad Max Mel Gibson? The very first image as Hardy in his Mad Max costume has surfaced, so judge for yourself!
First look at Tom Hardy as the new Mad Max This image popped up on Twitter, showing off a decidedly less 80s leather-clad warrior. This looks as though Tom Hardy went to the desert in his Band Of Brothers gear. But the scarf is a nice touch, and the haircut is all Brooklyn. Should be interesting to see what else comes of this recast character.
Here's the insane synopsis:
"Mad Max is caught up with a group of people fleeing across the Wasteland in a War Rig driven by the Imperator Furiosa. This movie is an account of the Road War which follows. It is based on the Word Burgers of the History Men and eyewitness accounts of those who survived."
Fury Road hits theaters in 2013."
So I guess this means it really is happening.
Msg #1: On 12/22/2012 at 12:03:18 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Why can't they just come up with a new IP, for fuck's sake?
Msg #2: On 12/22/2012 at 6:42:08 AM, raptor2000 replied, saying: I'm as interested in a Gibson-less Mad Max as I am in a Cruise-less Mission Impossible or a Willis-less Die Hard. Which is to say, not at all. Hardy is a great actor, but I'm tired of roles being recast when the original actors are still alive and capable of performing them if they really wanted to.
Msg #3: On 12/23/2012 at 12:54:28 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Why the fuck would anyone still want to give Mel Gibson money? That's like buying Chris Brown albums after he hit Rihanna. Tom Hardy will be an amazing Mad Max.
Msg #4: On 12/23/2012 at 6:03:22 AM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: If you're going to campaign for people to stop giving money to people that do bad things, have prejudices, or have hurt another person either emotionally or physically then you should never give your money to anyone ever again, ever. The only reason you know about the handful that you do is because said people are among the richest and most famous alive, constantly in the public eye.
Fact is Mel Gibson has donated tens of millions to various organizations and charities, and he's been filmed being drunk and arrested for swearing about jews, and may have possibly hit a money grubbing whore that he used to have familiar relations with. I get drunk and swear about jews all the time, and I've never donated millions to anyone and I never will, and you never will either, so shut the fuck up. Replies: 12
Msg #5: On 12/23/2012 at 9:15:24 AM, Phily replied, saying: Mel Gibson has more talent in his pinky finger than 90 percent of Hollywood today. Dude made mistakes. You've made mistakes. Stop being a judgmental sycophant and be thankful for the contributions he has made to cinema. Replies: 11
Msg #6: On 12/23/2012 at 10:49:24 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I don't care about Gibson or no Gibson. I think Hardy will make a good Max, but I'm just so sick to death of reboots, remakes, sequels, and adaptations. WHY can't we get any fresh ideas?! People are literally paid millions to sit around and think of a good idea!
Msg #7: On 12/23/2012 at 11:21:26 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Not anymore, they aren't. Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 12/23/2012 at 12:42:20 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #7, saying: Agree 100% with Trainwreck. I like the crew and I like Hardy, but it's frustrating to see Warner Bros sink a nine-figure sum into another damn remake, sequel...rejig...whatever you call it.
Also, regarding Gibson, I don't give a shit what he's said and what he's done, the guy is a massive talent, a great charismatic leading man. I want him back, headlining tentpoles, as soon as possible. Looking forward to him fighting up Machete next summer!
Msg #9: On 12/23/2012 at 2:06:27 PM, dieterstark replied, saying: As long as this is a TOTALLY Australian production, filmed in Australia with Aussie cars and Aussie actors this could fucking great. Replies: 10
Msg #10: On 12/23/2012 at 2:43:30 PM, raptorpack. replied to Msg #9, saying: Dude. Tom Hardy is the lead Replies: 13
Msg #11: On 12/23/2012 at 3:02:04 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #5, saying: Mel Gibson is a pretty bad actor and a truly awful director. Even if he weren't a violent misogynistic bigot in real life, his "contributions to cinema" amount to a handful of mediocre performances as an action lead and three repulsive sadomasochistic period movies. He deserves to be completely driven out of the industry. If anyone is a sycophant, it's the person who would defend a horrible disgusting pig like Mel Gibson or Chris Brown on the grounds that, oh, well, everyone's made mistakes. Replies: 15, 17
Msg #12: On 12/23/2012 at 7:05:29 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #4, saying: Actions speak louder than money. He could donate his entire savings to charity; that doesn't imply any sincerity. Replies: 14
Msg #13: On 12/23/2012 at 8:04:32 PM, dieterstark replied to Msg #10, saying: Tom Harding isn't Australian, he's a Brit. I just hope he can pull off an aussie accent. Replies: 16
Msg #14: On 12/23/2012 at 10:00:47 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #12, saying: He gave money and resources to people in need...money and resources which did good. What difference does it make if it is "sincere" or not? Everybody makes mistakes, some worse than others. I'm not saying that lets him off the hook, but I'm certainly not going to condemn someone I don't know for something I saw on the Internet. Barring causing someone physical harm, I'm not going to judge someone based on their private life that has had bad moments exposed by paparazzi.
Msg #16: On 12/24/2012 at 2:19:57 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying: Ha ha ha, no shit, that's his point. You said it should be a totally Australian production, but it already can't be.
Msg #17: On 12/24/2012 at 6:36:35 AM, Neo The 1 replied to Msg #11, saying: I'm surprised you feel this way, given that he pushed very personal films that had no business being in the mainstream into major, arguably event films that people that never read books let alone lol movies went to go see. I figured you would at least admire the concept. Apocalypto is especially impressive, taking away the controversial aspect of Passion($$$) and still making a hit out of a 75 million dollar subtitled film with almost no dialogue? This is the kind of stuff you of all people should be championing if for no other reason than it gives hope to breaking out of that mold of the studio system.
And no one's defending anyone beating women dipshit, I was just pointing out that it's idiotic to delude yourself in judging what to spend your money on based on someone's personal life behind their product. Literally everyone is going to do horribe things at one time or another in their life, accidently or otherwise. A key difference here is that most people aren't also millionares that help countless others just by something as simple as throwing their money away. Replies: 19
Msg #18: On 12/24/2012 at 8:21:54 AM, Phily replied, saying: Lee's blinded by the fact the dude said some anti-semitic remarks and is a Christian. And because of those things, he's instantly sucky as an actor and filmmaker. Oh wells.
Msg #19: On 12/24/2012 at 11:18:25 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #17, saying: Gibson's films may be personal and out of the mainstream, but they're still disgusting and barbaric. I don't see a hell of a lot of value inherent merely to releasing a film that has subtitles and is performed entirely in an esoteric language when the aesthetic and moral impetus behind it is so awful.
Also, not "literally everyone" will do horrible shit. There are plenty of talented, famous people who have and will never be woman-hating racists who threaten to kill their loved ones and scream at the top of their lungs in people's faces when they get upset.
Phily, I don't know why you're assuming I'm blinded by "some anti-Semitic remarks" and the fact that he's a Christian (?). First of all, it goes beyond just some shit he said while drunk, at least as far as him being a horrible person. Have you read about Joe Eszterhas' experience trying to work with him on a film about the Maccabees? Second, none of that has anything to do with the fact that his movies are bad and that he's a bad actor. Do you honestly think he's a good actor? If he didn't have bright blue eyes and a generically handsome face, Hollywood would never have given him the time of day.
Msg #20: On 12/24/2012 at 12:05:07 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: So a film shouldn't be made if it's disgusting or barbaric? I don't see the value in hoping to limit a greater variety of films based on subject matter, even if that subject matter is not to your liking. Certainly not when it comes to films that are genuinely unique and prolific. I don't understand how you could find it in you to claim Apocalypto is poorly directed? I'm pretty indifferent to the film overall, but If anything I'd single it out for the quality of the directing.
And yes, literally everyone will do horrible shit. It won't all be the exact things Gibson has done, but that's why we're all so special. It's human nature- everyone will hurt someone. Are you going to try and tell me that people will go their entire lives without yelling something hateful to another person? A more accurate thing to say is that there are plenty of famous people who haven't been recorded doing these things. I mean shit, James Franco killed a woman in a hit and run and got away with it, and the only reason I or anyone else can even say that is because he wrote a fucking book about it and had it published as fiction(right next to On the Road). Replies: 21, 31
Msg #21: On 12/24/2012 at 12:27:12 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #20, saying: When most other people make mistakes, they accept responsibility and realize it was wrong. In Mel Gibson's mind, he's done nothing wrong and shows no remorse. You could apply your horseshit logic to any terrible event in history. "Oh well, people make mistakes all the time! Get over it!" Cuz nah bruh, it's not that simple.
Msg #22: On 12/24/2012 at 12:40:42 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: What the fuck are you even talking about? So if someone shows remorse it's okay? My horseshit logic?
You're the one ready to boycott Gibson movies like it's some kind of impressive statement, when the fact is plenty of other shit you're spending your money on is made by people that have undoubtably done just as bad if not worse, but just because it didn't make the tabloids it didn't happen, right?
When did I say you should get over it? I didn't. You can carry the torch or not, I don't give a shit, but at least be consistent. You say I'm trying to make things simple when the very essence of what I'm saying is that the bullshit you two are peddling is not that simple. People do good things AND bad things, and if you want to judge them just on the bad then go ahead, but the fact is that Mel Gibson with all his money has probably done more good than you or I ever will unless we too someday command that kind of wealth. I'm not defending his actions, I'm not saying the bad should be forgiven. But I am saying that at the moment Mel Gibson has done more good than you or I ever could.
So wrap your head around that before coming back with some more dumb bullshit about how it's not that simple.
Oh, and I don't know how I missed your little gem earliar about actions speaking louder than money, but this isn't some fucking John Grisham novel where money is buying off a jury member or being used to cover up a dead body or some shit. It's money for charity, the action IS giving the damn money away. Gibson has been rich far longer than he's had bad press, so he's hasn't just been giving money away to try and sway public opinion. Who gives a shit what the intent is? Like I said, that money will do more good than you or I ever could. A penniless bum could be the nicest fucking guy in the world, but it isn't going to mean shit because he'll probably be sitting on a corner doing nothing his entire life. A quick google search shows that one time Gibson donated 10 million to a fucking children's hospital. Which means that money directly influenced saving kids' lives, or helped the hospital have the equipment to help save kids' lives, or help the bottom line for the budget so that the hospital could keep all their fucking nurses on payroll so they can take care of their families- point is, no matter where or why it went, it helped.
Replies: 23
Msg #23: On 12/24/2012 at 2:09:56 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #22, saying: Too long, didn't read. When's a trailer coming out for this bad boy?
Msg #24: On 12/24/2012 at 2:18:00 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: If you were a woman I'd beat the shit out of you. Replies: 25
Msg #25: On 12/24/2012 at 2:52:21 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #24, saying: With your twig of a frame? You'd be lucky if you could beat up a quadriplegic person.
Msg #26: On 12/24/2012 at 3:16:38 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: Cute, but once again when confronted with how fucking stupid every single thing it is that you attempt to "add" to the topic at hand is, you run away or defer and then try to come back with jokes like you were never serious in the first place. I honestly can't comprehend how a single person can be so completely inept, but you're astounding more by the day. Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 12/24/2012 at 3:39:18 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #26, saying: I put my two cents in on the matter and was more than happy to leave it at that. You're the one who felt the need to (once again) derail the conversation. If you have a problem with the way I express my opinion, tough shit, that's your problem.
Msg #28: On 12/24/2012 at 3:45:17 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: You are the internet equivelant of a child shoving their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALA" so they don't have to listen to anything else.
You began this derailment by slamming Mel Gibson, continued to comment on it and then stopped as soon as you're faced with something that resembles making a point. You are happy to jump in on the derailment but then start peddling even more bullshit when called out on it? This conversation happened fairly organically after you brought it up, and you've been participating in it since then, so fuck right off. If you spent half the time that you do being a dismissive little cunt actually thinking about the things that you say, you might actually find a way to back up your moronic opinions in a manner that approaches intelligence.
I don't agree with 90% of the stuff Ostro says here, but he always backs it up with reason and intelligence. It allows for an easy form of debate, admiration and respect that you'll likely lack your entire life. Replies: 29
Msg #29: On 12/24/2012 at 4:23:25 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #28, saying: I typed two sentences and you responded with two paragraphs. You seem to be taking this awfully personally. If I seem like a child with my fingers in my ears, it's because I don't actually value anything you have to say. :) But I've already told you this, so I don't know why you keep beating it into the ground. Get over it. Move on.
Msg #30: On 12/24/2012 at 6:06:46 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: Then don't fucking address me, put words in my mouth, and directly respond to my posts with misinformation and antagonizing garbage. You are so full of shit it's beyond rediculous.
I would gladly spend $1000 dollars in a day to fly to your house and break your goddamn fingers.. not to hurt you or anything like that, but just so I don't have to read any of your shit for a month. Best Christmas ever? Replies: 33
Msg #31: On 12/24/2012 at 9:15:01 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #20, saying: I don't think a film shouldn't be made just because of its subject matter, but that doesn't mean it will be good, and a man shouldn't get a free pass to make whatever monstrous, ugly movies he wants just because he's pre-established Hollywood clout. We're not talking about a guy who's made a decades-long string of undeniable masterpieces; Gibson is a hack movie star who has made one decent melodrama, one criminally overrated schlock period-piece, and two sadomasochistic torture porn movies.
As for Apocalypto's direction, I'm not sure what's particularly impressive about it other than what Gibson's DP did with jungle lighting. Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 12/24/2012 at 10:02:39 PM, Neo The 1 replied to Msg #31, saying: Maybe I'm overly impressed with it because of how completely alien the entire film was to me at the time, but I remember being very impressed with the performances that he got out of complete unknowns- many of which never before acted in their lives. The level of dedication and passion put into the movie was readily apparent and undeniable to me- I still remember the very first publicity shot I saw of it, with him with trudging through some river leading the charge of his actors. Granted I was young, but it stuck with me in a kind of "this is what a director should be doing" way (vs the George Lucas sitting in his chair in front of his green screen).
It struck me as a roller coaster adventure chase film and I never considered it torture porn in the slightest. Hostel, the latter Saw films.. sure. But this just seemed like it was trying to portray the brutality of the times accurately, even if various history professors would disagree.
I haven't seen it in years so this has definitely piqued my interest to watch it again to see if it holds up how I remember it.
As to the subject of whether or not someone should be allowed to make a movie, is there a way to really judge this? I was sort of subscribing to a live and let live type of mentality, but with such a relatively small amount of film-makers given such a shot, perhaps it is better to try and weed out the worse ones. The problem with this is that it seems like the weeding out process currently robs us of risk takers and leaves us with a cache of yes men and hacks.
Msg #33: On 12/24/2012 at 11:03:44 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #30, saying: I'm going to do whatever I want to do, and some sack of shit on a random movie message board isn't going to change that. But have fun being Internet Tough Guy. Please. Because it would bring me great pleasure to see you actually come to my house and try to break my fingers.
Msg #34: On 12/24/2012 at 11:46:00 PM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: Honestly, why bother with a response like that? Genuinely curious. It's just internet tough guy talk of your own, and unless you post your address(don't), there's really no point is there? Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 12/25/2012 at 1:31:45 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #34, saying: There isn't really much point in saying you'll break someone's fingers so they'll stop typing , is there? Regardless, this is all your own doing, so shut the fuck up if you really want it to stop. Because I can keep going all night, hunty.
Msg #36: On 12/25/2012 at 7:20:36 AM, Neo The 1 replied, saying: I'm sure. MERRY CHRISTMAS.
Msg #37: On 12/26/2012 at 11:31:52 PM, trex54 replied, saying: Two men enter. One man leaves.
Msg #38: On 7/27/2014 at 4:57:55 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: It's drop dead GLORIOUS:
Goddamn. Miller still got it. Replies: 42
Msg #42: On 7/27/2014 at 9:15:48 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #41, saying: It does look pretty cool. I never really liked the original movies because they always felt a bit constrained by the limits of technology at the time, like they wanted to take the action scenes to the next level but just couldn't. The only problem I see with this is how goddamn orange it looks.
Msg #43: On 7/27/2014 at 10:51:26 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: The only thing better than this trailer are NeoRez's responses to VR87.
Judging by the strong use of orange and blue, this might be the first feature length poster. Replies: 46
Msg #44: On 7/27/2014 at 11:00:49 PM, Phily replied, saying: I am so thankful George Miller finally came out of his penguin fetish and is back to violent apocalyptic Aussie action - this looks freaking FANTASTIC.
Msg #45: On 7/28/2014 at 2:27:29 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying: For me this was the most exciting thing to come out of Comic Con. I mean GODDAMN.
Msg #46: On 7/28/2014 at 2:27:54 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #43, saying: Tired has-been drama queen stirs shit, on today's repeat episode of The Real Housewives of Dan's Jp3 Page. Fuck off, Paul. You aren't remotely funny or clever.
I'm okay with it this time.
Msg #50: On 7/29/2014 at 12:03:22 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: If it's a sequel, I'm shocked they didn't get Mel Gibson and have an old Max.
Msg #51: On 7/29/2014 at 12:06:18 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: My guess is Mel is old and Miller has two more films in him. He's not so sure about Mel. Or maybe Gibson just ain't as sure fire bankable because of his public perception.
I would have liked it though. Tom Hardy ain't a bad replacement however. He has a somewhat Gibson look and feel here. Replies: 52
Msg #52: On 7/29/2014 at 12:08:21 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #51, saying: I mainly meant that that's the big trend with action movies now, and I think everybody wanted to see an old grizzled Max more than, say, Rocky or Rambo or John McClane.
Anyway, LMAO that they filmed this thing in Namibia: "In November 2011, filming was moved from Broken Hill to Namibia, after unexpected heavy rains turned the desert there into a lush landscape of wildflowers, inappropriate for the look of the movie."
Msg #53: On 7/29/2014 at 12:10:05 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: You should look into the troubled production. This movie took FOREVER to get made. Replies: 54
Msg #54: On 7/29/2014 at 12:11:15 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #53, saying: I see that. I've been laughing at the Wikipedia page on it. All for a movie about cars blowing up in the desert. At least it looks like a fun movie after all that horseshit.
Msg #55: On 7/29/2014 at 12:23:20 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: It's about time somebody made a really fun movie in a theater again. X-Men Days of Future Past was a blessing in disguise and I don't normally like watching Hollywood fare anymore.
Msg #56: On 12/10/2014 at 2:31:19 PM, PaulSF replied, saying:
That's pretty much what I'm expecting after this trailer
Am not disappoint Replies: 60
Msg #60: On 12/10/2014 at 5:45:58 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #59, saying: That's actually really badass. Miller gets what people want out of an action movie. What the hell has he been doing while all these nitwits with their computer animation degrees and music video resumes have been taking over? Replies: 64
Msg #61: On 12/10/2014 at 8:39:29 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: This looks like a total PARTY; it literally just became my third most anticipated movie of 2015 (right behind JURASSIC WORLD and STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS). I just hope to holy hell that this, opening a week after AVENGERS 2, doesn't flop or anything. That will be tragic as fuck. And given the box-office patterns of the grand majority of American audiences...yeahhhh :(
Msg #62: On 12/10/2014 at 10:41:28 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Go, Miller, Go!
Msg #63: On 12/11/2014 at 10:40:18 AM, Adam replied, saying: Bloody hell that made me smile. Replies: 68
Msg #64: On 12/12/2014 at 2:12:43 AM, Dac replied to Msg #60, saying: "What the hell has he been doing"
Making crappy eco-centric dancing penguin movies.
Thank God that's over and this is here.
Msg #65: On 12/12/2014 at 7:09:42 PM, Bryan replied, saying: I dig the Mad Mad films but I did find them a little stale since I saw them well after I really should have and long after I'd seen imitators do similar things. I guess I'm in the minority that isn't overly impressed with the trailer. It looks like more of Road Warrior, except now Miller can use Tom Brady and CGI. I know it's a trailer but the only time Brady shows any character is the thumbs up thing. He's talented as fuck but I hope his character didn't get lost in the deluge of development hell.
Msg #66: On 12/12/2014 at 7:47:18 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I love Mad Mad films starring Tom Brady Replies: 67
Msg #67: On 12/12/2014 at 8:14:27 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #66, saying: lmfao
Msg #68: On 3/26/2015 at 8:04:33 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #63, saying: So does this confirmation.
MPAA Rating: R (for intense sequences of violence throughout, and for disturbing images)
Msg #69: On 4/1/2015 at 2:05:37 AM, Seth Rex replied, saying: Let me ask...where does this take place in the Mad Max Universe? Is it a sequel that takes place after Thunderdome or what?
Msg #70: On 5/12/2015 at 2:16:24 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Best movie of the year. Replies: 71
Msg #71: On 5/12/2015 at 2:24:09 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #70, saying: That's huge - I was never the biggest fan of Mad Max but this looks phenomenal.
Msg #72: On 5/12/2015 at 5:39:06 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: In a year when films like the most packed Avengers yet shares the screens with the heralded return of both Star Wars and Jurassic Park, it's astounding that Miller has quietly crafted such a magnificent big budget action film that feels like the last 20 years were ruled not by advancements in CG but by further pushing the edge of practical stunt work and real life madness that drove films for the 20 prior. Perhaps it's better to simply call it a competently made film in an ocean of amateurs. My top pick of the year usually goes to a smaller film, but I can't imagine anything beating out the insane levels of craftmanship that explodes out of every frame of this thing- not everything I watch or deem "the best" needs to be some sort of heavy life changing oscar bait. I suppose I should feel lucky after last year's Gaurdians of the Galaxy to so quickly have another tentpole film impress (and even surpass) when they are usually relegated to limp or forgettable committee films. Much like Guardians distinguished itself via James Gunn, Fury Road is Miller taking his guts and smearing them across the screen for everyone to see. Unlimited imagination is on full display throughout and provides a stark contrast to the dull, self important event films churned out by Nolan over the past several years. It's great to have a film full of practical fx that you can champion without feeling ashamed. Even if Star Wars follows through later this year, I expect this will be impossible to top. Replies: 73
Msg #73: On 5/12/2015 at 5:43:01 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #72, saying: What's hilarious to me about CGI action movies is how little the directors are involved with the actual action. You can just pay animators to do it for you and then say yay or nay when they show you the stuff they rendered on their computers. I know it's a cliche now to advocate for practical special effects over CGI, but the thing I love about it is that you know the director had to be there when they did it. Replies: 74
Msg #74: On 5/12/2015 at 5:51:12 AM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #73, saying: It definitely has become a cliche to advocate for practical in film fan circles, but probably the greatest compliment I can give to Fury Road is that it's the first time I can see it actually making a difference in convincing future productions to go practical. You'd have to be a blind audience member not to notice the difference here, so I just hope people show up in the first place.
Msg #75: On 5/14/2015 at 12:41:13 AM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: I cannot get over the immense praise for this film. The praise heaped over this thing so far is some of the most strongly unanimous, fiercely-worded prose to ever come out of critic's mouths, certainly for an action film in this day of age. It's the stuff that classics and masterpieces are made of.
...but hyped for this film as I am, I also worry about being over-hyped. I mean, just look at the Rotten Tomatoes score; is it REALLY this good. Too good to be true? Anyone else feeling the same way?
I hope this film kicks my ass.
Msg #78: On 5/15/2015 at 4:55:56 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: I've been letting it simmer for the past few hours, but my initial reaction still boils down to... some cool world building and well shot action, but the hyperbole on this is ridiculous. Thankfully, a somewhat uninteresting first hour was followed by an incredible final forty-five minutes where things like character development and tell-me-why-I-should-care finally show up, paired with by far the best action sequence of the film and probably one of the better of the decade. Yet overall, I think people are getting far too bowled over by the fact that the stunts and practicality of it all looked sensational. Well yes, it did, but I can't say the actual content of that action gave me anything terribly new or exciting to experience for a sustained amount of time, and I cared about absolutely nothing or anyone on screen until over halfway through the film. It felt like the longest cold open I've ever seen (albeit with fire-guitar, which was hilarious), and then in the third act, a semblance of a narrative with some character beats showed up and saved it for me. Though I expected to be quite a bit more thoroughly wowed based on the reaction to this thing. Tom Hardy also wasn't memorable in the slightest as Max with not even a quarter of the screen presence of Gibson; Theron stole the show in every moment and I really liked how it came together with them by the end. 3.5/5
Msg #79: On 5/15/2015 at 4:55:35 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: This was one gnarly motherfucker.
I walked out of the theater feeling dazed, numb. That doesn't happen often. In reference to the trailers and TV spots, George Miller absolutely earns the name "mastermind". Dude is a genius. What he was able to do with a $150-180 million budget in the middle of the South African desert is nothing short of extraordinary. This is a beautiful, relentless, magnificent, well-acted and utterly unforgettable motion picture experience, and deserves to be seen by...well, everyone.
Most fun I've had watching a film in years.
Msg #81: On 5/15/2015 at 8:52:39 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: This is an excellent action movie. The ridiculous hyperbole people online (i.e. men) are throwing around about how amazing, masterful, brilliant, etc. this movie is around reminds me of the stupid discourse of macho chest-puffing that surrounded 300, but this is a far better film and will last much longer. I prefer Tom Hardy as Max than Mel Gibson because he's much more deft at conveying that actual madness of the character, and he's more convincing as really tough son of a bitch. He's also more suited to the character's new role as a co-star; the film is basically a remake of Stagecoach, an ensemble movie with Tom Hardy in the John Wayne role.
Also, Paul, you're either out of your mind or thick as a brick if you think there wasn't any character development until the second half of the film. You could spend a whole week in a film course breaking down how and why Miller ditched verbal exposition and dialogue almost entirely in favor of characterization and storytelling through action. Replies: 82, 96
Msg #82: On 5/15/2015 at 9:23:56 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #81, saying: I understood why they were and what they were in that first hour by way of that, but none of it resulted in any real reason to care. In the last portion when the movie slowed the fuck down and characters actually started talking and establishing relationships, suddenly I wanted to see them succeed, right down to the old lady and her garden bag. Before then it was a well orchestrated string of great stunts and cinematography, and that's about it. If you disagree, cool. There seems to be plenty of that with this going around. Replies: 83
Msg #83: On 5/15/2015 at 9:30:53 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #82, saying: It's not really a matter of disagreement, though, Paul. You're ignoring - or didn't notice - all the little moments of relationship building that happened during the first hour and a half with almost no dialogue involved. The most obvious is how Max and Furiosa gradually learn to trust each other and understand each other's motives while they're in the middle of combat. There are so many subtle ways the actors hold their guns or look at each other that lets you know where they stand with each other without breaking the flow of action. The movie is at its worst when they actually do slow down to talk about this stuff, and, thankfully, it happens only briefly, and only to establish a few background details that couldn't be expressed visually. Replies: 84
Msg #84: On 5/15/2015 at 9:40:34 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #83, saying: As you're mentioning it I'm remembering these things, but my reaction to how a character is holding their gun, resulted in and remains a total indifference that strikes no chord with me in relation to why I should care. I need more than that, personally. Eventually I at least kind of got it in the parts you didn't care for. It's just probably not my thing. Replies: 85
Msg #85: On 5/15/2015 at 10:38:06 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #84, saying: "More than that"? More than what? Like, no offense, but you're literally saying that you need "more" than visuals and action to convey meaning to you in a movie, that you actually need them to spell things out verbally for you to care. It's fine if you just don't like the characters themselves or the film's relentless pacing, but it seems like your main problem with the film is that you simply didn't pick up on these things because they were too subtle. Replies: 86
Msg #86: On 5/15/2015 at 11:40:56 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #85, saying: 'More than that' as in maybe a story not being paper thin with blink-and-you'll-miss-em characterizations. This can't be that hard to understand. If I don't care about their plight to begin with or what they're trying to achieve until over sixty-minutes into your film (somehow bits of subtle body language that goes by in an instant is suppose to stand-in for this), then that's a problem.
If I needed more than visuals to convey emotion to me in a movie, I guess there'd be no point in watching The General again. Only I own that film, because it's much more successful at giving me characters I'm the least bit sympathetic to in within its first ten minutes alone than a whole fucking hour of Fury Road. Replies: 87
Msg #87: On 5/16/2015 at 12:05:47 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #86, saying: First of all, you're always saying things like "this can't be that hard to understand" when people are arguing with you, but it's because you really don't express yourself all that clearly. I know I've said this to you before and I don't want to be didactic to you, but what am I supposed to make of this:
I understood why they were and what they were in that first hour by way of that
Who is "they"? What is "that"? What do you mean by "why they were"? I had to re-read this a couple of times to figure out what you meant. I assumed you couldn't just be saying that visuals alone are not enough to tell a story, but that's actually what the words you posted do mean, so what the hell am I supposed to think?
Second, it seems like a strange criticism to levy against an action movie to say that it's plot is too thin. I'll admit I have a personal dislike for plot-heavy narratives, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a good action movie that doesn't have a thin or simplistic plot.
Third, what more could you possibly want from the film to make you sympathize with these characters? Why did you not care about them at the beginning? Even ignoring the fact that you kind of already like Mad Max from the previous films as soon as he's on screen, every single moment and shot and image in the first act of the film is set up to show how fucked up this little kingdom is and how courageous and badass Furiosa is for rebelling against it by rescuing sex slaves. How much more back story or character drama do you need to root for these people? Replies: 88
Msg #88: On 5/16/2015 at 12:54:27 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #87, saying: Who is "they"?
The characters we were literally just talking about.
What is "that"?
The subtle visual gestures you, like, just mentioned to me that you think I missed.
What do you mean by "why they were"?
Because, again, you just said they expressed who they were through their actions and that was the type of character development in the first hour. Yeah, acknowledged. I understood why they acted the way they did and noticed their gestures. I realize I say this a lot, but I seriously cannot grasp why you're so thrown off by these things. It's like you somehow end up confusing the fuck out of yourself; somehow I'm the one in the wrong because you don't understand who "they" are when I'm clearly responding to your point about the character development.
it seems like a strange criticism to levy against an action movie to say that it's plot is too thin.
Then that's another way we just simply differ. Something like Casino Royale and Skyfall represent what I'm looking for in action films where it's absolutely story, dialogue, character driven. In the case of the latter, I was even sympathetic toward the villain and understood where he was coming from (not that it always needs to be that way with baddies; Indiana Jones). There's a hook to everything. When the big action sequences come, it's suspenseful and exciting. This did manage to get there at the end. If you think just action and visuals are enough to engage for a full two hours, with talky scenes killing the fun, I'm sure this is a great time at the movies. Kind of like The Raid and John Wick, which did far less for me than this. I'd gladly watch Fury Road again. That's more than I can say about two hours of people being shot.
As far as your last paragraph goes, it's all technically true, but none of it had that moment that resonated enough. I should care about Max because... I saw the other movies from 30 years ago and he's still having some PTSD visions of his child? Okay, maybe try doing something with it? It went absolutely nowhere. Even beyond that, how about for those who've never heard of Mad Max? The hell are they suppose to take out of him as a person from this script other than he's nearly as crazed as the villains due to his way of life? This is somehow compelling enough? Furiouso and the sex slaves? Outside of Rosie-Whitley falling out of the truck and their reaction, there was zero punch to the material. I'm struggling to remember a single moment between any of them other than the relationship that budded between Nicholas Hoult's character and one of the slaves, another midway point introduction where it actually slowed down and bothered with things like character arcs.
Msg #89: On 5/16/2015 at 3:14:29 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: This was a pretty good action flick. Thank Christ one came around. I haven't seen one of those in nearly a decade.
Anyway, I can't believe the first hour did absolutely nothing for you, Paul. There was plenty of character stuff in there. Maybe not so much in the way for distinction between all of the "wives" or whatever, but plenty of stuff from Nux, Max, and Furiosa.
Msg #90: On 5/16/2015 at 4:57:07 AM, Phily replied, saying: So many cinematic "standards" upended in this film.... the ugliness of the characters, a paraplegic heroine, zero love story between the leads, the bait and switch narrative.... I loved it all.
This movie was pretty awesome. When I heard that it had very little dialogue I thought it would bug me but it didn't. And for most of the movie I couldn't understand what the deal was with the meninists. Explosions, huge lightning tornado storms, Max fighting his way off being strapped to the hood of a car, a dude that plays the guitar to set the mood for some road battles, what's not to like? Then I got it when they found the old ladies that there are just max and that one dude as the male leads and the rest are girls. Apparently they have a problem with badass old ladies on motorcycles... that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, too. I'm hoping they don't have a problem with the wives not wanting to be property. But I bet some of them do. But it makes me enjoy it even more knowing that it bothers them.
I hear they plan to do another one too. I hope Furiosa is in it
Msg #94: On 5/23/2015 at 12:03:26 PM, Bryan replied, saying: I stand utterly corrected from my previous post. Hardy makes for an amazing Max and even, occasionally, nails the cadence and delivery of Gibson's speech and mannerisms. I'm not gonna sit here and repeat everything I loved about this film, since you all have already spelled most of it out. But from top to bottom--from the cast to the stunts to the direction to the locations to the set pieces--everything gelled to create an exciting action masterpiece that I'm literally still thinking about hours after seeing it.
Max's unspoken decision that he had not yet achieved redemption, despite all the good he's done, was as heartbreaking as Furiosa's redemption story was uplifting. What an incredible ending. What an incredible ride.
I totally get Paul's point that we don't know much about the characters and why we should care about them other than they're these random trophy wives who are escaping. I did like the subtle build up of their relationship and trust, but seeing that doesn't make me care more about them individually.
Once we learned more about Theron's character and her roots near the end of the movie, like Paul said, that's where I started getting more invested. I think these moments might have been better served being shown to the audience at the BEGINNING of the movie.
That being said, I diverge from Paul's opinion slightly because I did care about Max (having just seen the first three movies and being on board with him) and I also cared about the one pasty white dude that turns good as he seemed sympathetic at the beginning of the movie (he was just brainwashed by his society)... I knew his story would lead somewhere. I also grew to like Theron for her willingness to fight on an even level with Max and do anything to get out of her situation. But like I said, I would have liked to know more about her at the beginning of the film.
I'm also in agreement with Paul that Max seemed really low key in this movie and more of a supporting character almost. It's not really a huge problem I guess, but was kind of weird how he barely talked as he did not seem that traumatized at the end of Mad Max 3.
That all being said, the action was simply fucking incredible and a joy to watch. Some of the best action I've seen in over a decade probably. I think only the Matrix (and Reloaded) comes close to wowing me as much as this did. The bar was set very high in the first chase and they just kept raising it. There were so many memorable action moments and inventive action pieces and it looked visually stunning and real.
SPOILERS: I also love how Miller refuses to follow genre convention and routinely has ugliness and characters we are invested in being brutally killed. They are not an exception to what's going on in the film. It keeps everything so much less predictable. I seriously did not expect the pregnant woman to get run down like that, much like I didn't expect Max's wife and kid to get run down.
9/10
Msg #96: On 5/30/2015 at 5:40:48 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #81, saying: I've been thinking about this movie for two weeks and talking about it with a lot of people, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a masterpiece and the best action movie I've ever seen. Replies: 97, 99
Msg #97: On 5/30/2015 at 7:56:21 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #96, saying: I've been stuck writing on my phone this last week or so, tough to articulate a longer response, but I'm with Ostro on this. It's a staggering achievement. I've been trying to insist pretty much everyone I know gets themselves into the cinema.
Msg #98: On 5/31/2015 at 4:41:28 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: It's pretty incredible. Some of the stunts and creativity is just mindblowing. Usually endless action just gets boring after a while, but the pacing in this is perfect, and the variety of the shit happening keeps you guessing and in anticipation of what's happening next. It will go down as an action classic no doubt. Contrast it with The Hobbit 3 which I felt was just a whole lot of sword swinging and bow shooting over and over and over. I cared more about the characters in that movie but the action just did not keep me nearly as engrossed.
Msg #99: On 5/31/2015 at 5:23:42 AM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #96, saying: Lol ya right you don't like anything ostro, lol
Msg #100: On 6/1/2015 at 9:07:36 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: I can't say I expected a 2 hour explosion to be as good as this turned out to be. It has been a long while since I've truly enjoyed a pure action film, but this was far beyond refreshing.
That soundtrack... I just need it.
Will be seeing this one again quite soon.
Msg #101: On 6/2/2015 at 4:57:03 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Yeah the soundtrack is a gajillion times better than any of the original trilogy.
Msg #102: On 6/3/2015 at 12:39:57 AM, Bryan replied, saying: I can tell you that it is most certainly the best Mad Max movie, definitely my favorite. I hope that it has the same kind of influence that Road Warrior did, and that it wakes up certain big budget directors that practical filmmaking is just better.
Msg #103: On 6/10/2015 at 2:02:39 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Seeing this at a drive in this weekend. Going to get drunk and fingerbang some slut that thinks she's my girlfriend. NAH, she's not a slut.
Msg #104: On 6/28/2015 at 6:43:14 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Finally got around to seeing this, and I'm so glad I did before it left theaters! I feel I was actually unprepared for it - at first, I was expecting to be bored by the ultraviolence, but it felt so much more substantial than the CGI bullshit that we see these days, and the lack of dialogue actually enhanced the impact of the dynamic relationships involved. I can't really add much to what's already been said, so just count me as another bandwagoning (War Rigging?) voice.
However, one thing that needs addressing here is...
Apparently they have a problem with badass old ladies on motorcycles... that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, too. I'm hoping they don't have a problem with the wives not wanting to be property. But I bet some of them do.
and the HILARIOUS reaction of meninists to this movie
Yeah, I read about the meninists. Good shit.
To be fair to those who have issues with the portrayal of men and women, I think it has more to do with the fact that all men (aside from Max) are portrayed as villanous, raping, psychopaths, whereas all women are portrayed as wise, noble, and generally without fault. We hear Furiosa make some passing reference to needing redemption, but we don't really hear more about it. It seems that the movie's ideal governmental state is one of matriarchy, not one of shared governance between the sexes. So I think that's the issue a lot of men are bringing up or at least the unvoiced concern behind what they're saying. Put another way, men are irredeemably bad while women are paragons of virtue, temperance, and wisdom.
I'm not saying you have to agree with that or not (it could be right, wrong, or somewhere in the middle), but to dismiss anyone with a concern over sexism in this (or any other) film as some "meninist" troglodyte is intellectually dishonest, at best, and downright sexist at worst.
For the record, I don't think that's what Miller was going for, but even if that is a statement he intended, I think there is some merit to the moral inferiority of males and the idea that we should be removed from the species through artificial reproduction, lol. At the very least, I can't argue in favor of keeping males around longer than absolutely necessary. Replies: 105, 107
Msg #105: On 6/28/2015 at 7:27:06 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #104, saying: I've tried to avoid talking about the gender politics of this film because (a) it's fucking everywhere and I don't really have any unique opinion to contribute, and (b) I don't think the film has any overt political agenda and the extreme reaction to its feminist reactions seems, to me, to be sparked mainly by the overwhelming sexism in other movies, from which this film is a welcome relief. However, I do want to address a couple things you said:
I think it has more to do with the fact that all men (aside from Max) are portrayed as villanous, raping, psychopaths, whereas all women are portrayed as wise, noble, and generally without fault.
This isn't quite true. That one War Boy, Nux, is one of the film's most complex and sympathetic characters. Likewise, all the War Boys under Immortan Joe's command are portrayed as brainwashed victims of a cult whose bodies are treated as much like property as Joe's wives, only they're sent to die in battle instead of kept in a cage to produce babies. The only men in the film who actually come across as irredeemable villains are the handful of grotesque warlords and gang leaders.
It seems that the movie's ideal governmental state is one of matriarchy, not one of shared governance between the sexes [...] Put another way, men are irredeemably bad while women are paragons of virtue, temperance, and wisdom.
This isn't really true, either. The end of the film is ambiguous about how the Citadel will be governed now that Furiosa and those old ladies are there, but it seemed to me that they were going to try to implement an egalitarian society (probably based around communal farming) rather than simply replace Joe's patriarchy with a matriarchy. You're right that they don't elaborate on Furiosa's need for redemption very much (which, from what I've read, is fodder for a sequel Miller already had planned years ago), but one of those old ladies says "I killed everyone I ever met out here." That's not a paragon of virtue; that's just another regular person pushed to the limits and willing to do anything for survival. Same goes for the escaped sex slaves, who really don't show much virtue beyond a desire to stay together for survival.
As for the wisdom thing, I can see that because those old ladies are kind of stock Mother Nature types, but they're also the only old people in the movie, period. I kind of figured guys like Immortan Joe had killed all the old people for being useless.
Also, if we're being realistic, in a world where civilization has completely broken down like that, I don't think it's sexist at all to depict societies based around evil rapist warlords. That's probably what would happen, assuming everyone didn't just die of starvation or thirst.
to dismiss anyone with a concern over sexism in this (or any other) film as some "meninist" troglodyte is intellectually dishonest, at best, and downright sexist at worst.
No, what's hilarious about it is that they were bitching about the movie before it even came out and were calling to boycott based off what they thought it was about from the trailer.
Msg #106: On 6/29/2015 at 3:59:41 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Yeah I'm 100% with Ostro on this one. I mean even in present day in war torn countries we see rapist warlords running the show.
Msg #107: On 6/29/2015 at 4:55:39 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #104, saying: http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road
Msg #108: On 6/29/2015 at 11:36:46 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: And I'm not disagreeing in any sense with Ostro, so don't act like you have to take some side of a pissing match here. I'm just trying to point out that not all of those who are criticizing the movie for alleged sexism are doing it for the strawman reasons that Narrator wrote about. I can see where they're coming from, but I don't agree with them.
No, what's hilarious about it is that they were bitching about the movie before it even came out and were calling to boycott based off what they thought it was about from the trailer.
I didn't really follow this movie's development at all, but of course it goes without saying that anyone freaking out about it before seeing the finished product should be criticized. The column that Narrator lazily avoided linking to (copy & paste, seriously? In 2015?) is silly and contains no argument worth consideration.
That's probably what would happen, assuming everyone didn't just die of starvation or thirst.
Again, I agree. I just hope I can be one of the warlords.
Speaking of which, I really loved Immortan Joe. Not in the role model sense, necessarily, but I think it's awesome that they brought back Hugh Keays-Byrne from the original. I was confused throughout the movie because I kept thinking, "why does he remind me of the original villain so much? They obviously can't be the same character..." Replies: 109
Msg #109: On 6/29/2015 at 9:44:41 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #108, saying: Yeah I'm not saying you're not making good points, I just think his counters are solid. Replies: 110
Msg #110: On 6/29/2015 at 11:47:18 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #109, saying: Oh, I do too. I guess my point is that we shouldn't build strawmen or dismiss an entire bloc of people by using the dumbest arguments proposed by some of its members.
It wouldn't be fair, for example, to take the dumbest/most offensive conservatard arguments (HUSSEIN Obama the MOOSLIM is taking our guns!) and use them to dismiss all right-of-center folks as nutjobs.
Msg #111: On 9/23/2015 at 10:38:57 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: No one's here anymore, but
