Monterey Jack wrote:Drew McWeeney at HitFix gave it his customary A+...the same "highest possible grade to give to a movie" rating he gave The Muppets and Man Of Steel.

LOLOLOLOL

That doesn't inspire me with confidence on its own, though certainly it looks good

Review, front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2015/05/14/5-19-15- ... e-mad-max/

Make no mistake -- this is a very modern film that, tonally, really has nothing to do with the other Mad Max movies (if anything it's more like The Fast & The Furious in the post-apocalyptic wasteland). There's little character development, even less than, say, The Road Warrior. There aren't a lot of scenes for the actors to do much of anything but keep on moving, because it's one long chase. The music stinks, and some of the gross-out elements I could've lived without.

That said, and despite the fact that Max really doesn't have much to do (and yes, I do miss Mel, because I don't think Miller gave Hardy much of a chance to make the character his own), this is a sensationally exciting film -- for what it is.

It's loud, it's simple minded, it isn't trying to do anything except overwhelm you with outlandish action...but on that level, it's hugely entertaining.

Sounds like good fun.

It's fun and it is a dazzling technical achievement -- but, admittedly, there's no emotional resonance, not much 'heart,' and even THE ROAD WARRIOR had that. That's why I think this film works best if you distance yourself from the prior movies. It doesn't really look or feel like them.

What's very interesting to me is what Tom Hardy described as being frustrating working on the film -- that Miller never really had a good grasp on what Max was doing -- is very evident on-screen. That's not Hardy's fault, it's Miller's. The character isn't developed beyond some vague and weird "flashbacks" to him having lost something/someone. It never really worked for me, and you can see where he'd be upset with Miller. Charlize Theron's character had a very specific purpose and point, but Max is just kind of "along for the ride." I'm not sure he was even needed in the film in the first place. It all sounds like Harrison Ford's frustration working with Ridley Scott on BLADE RUNNER.

In retrospect, bringing Gibson back would have made more sense because he IS the character and that audience familiarity would have helped the script's deficiencies -- instead, Miller kind of left Hardy stranded on an island there by not enabling him the chance to make the character his own.

I see Hardy has "apologized" for being frustrated with Miller -- it just sounds, again, much like BLADE RUNNER, where you had actors squabbling (Theron and Hardy here; Harrison Ford and Sean Young there), and the director was more invested in hardware than the characters.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/ ... d-20150514

9/10



The above gif pretty much illustrates the state of mind I was in when I staggered out of the theater a few hours ago...I can't remember the last movie to give me such a visceral, kinetic kick as this. Andy is right in that "character development" is essentially nil...while Tom Hardy's laconic physicality in the role is impressive, it would have given the movie a tad of emotional resonance if they had actually specified the murky "tragedy" that haunts him throughout the film (although I caught a split-second Easter Egg in one of them...a flash of the eye-bugging Toecutter face from the original movie). That said, however, I can't imagine another summer action movie delivering more bang for the buck that this. I don't know that it'll be that successful at the box office...the R rating will hurt it, not to mention the sheer unadulterated insanity of the production/vehicle design and the quasi-cartoonish vibe of the whole production (this is like a vintage Heavy Metal comic strip come to life), but for those like us who were actually alive during the heyday of hyper-violent 80's action cinema, this will go down like a cold beer on a hot afternoon.

^^^ now that's a review!

"Are you threatening me?!"

best review I've read in forever

I had a hard time pegging a rating on this film, because it is utterly entertaining and brilliantly executed...for what it's trying to be. But I still lamented the fact that, like every other studio product these days, there's no emotional heft to it at all. You don't know the characters to any degree, so it's hard to care about them. It's why I called it a "hardware movie," because that's all it is. In hindsight, why did there need to be that many girls fleeing from the bad guy? Why not just have 1 or 2 of them instead of, what, 4? None of them exist beyond "the girl with the red hair" or "the pregnant one" anyway.

That's really my hang up. Again, don't misunderstand me -- I thought the movie was brilliant for what it was -- but it's ultimately just a "ride", like every other big ticket blockbuster these days. It's better executed than the rest, no question, but those dramatic character beats in all the earlier films? They're nowhere to be found here. And it's why the whole thing has a detached feel, because it never engages you beyond the action, and never makes you care about the characters.

Some analysts now pegging the opening as a major disappointment. Can't say I'm shocked because the theater was completely empty, both shows Thursday night (the 7 and 930).

I have to say -- in hindsight -- they should have brought back Mel. No matter how "diminished" his acting career may be, having Gibson return to his legendary role would've pushed these grosses up big-time. The film has no star power. Cinemascore audience polling was also B+, which isn't great, and also was a result of the lack of character development IMO.

I'd expect this is also going to be frontloaded, so $100 mil domestic is going to be out of the question if they don't do much over $40 million this weekend. They're going to need a big rally overseas to break even, much less generate another sequel.

AndyDursin wrote:I have to say -- in hindsight -- they should have brought back Mel. No matter how "diminished" his acting career may be, having Gibson return to his legendary role would've pushed these grosses up big-time.

I agree. Hollywood clearly considers him an embarrassment, and have essentially made him "stand in the corner" -- but he still has a mainstream fan base. The popularity of the original Mad Max movies, the Lethal Weapons and Braveheart hasn't disappeared because of his "indiscretions".

And Gibson IS Mad Max. People would've showed up to see him in this role again. Major miscalculation commercially IMO

AndyDursin wrote:And Gibson IS Mad Max. People would've showed up to see him in this role again. Major miscalculation commercially IMO

Even the way Max's role is constructed in Fury Road -- with his face obscured by a mask for most of the first half -- seems like it was written with Gibson in mind. If Max had spent half the movie trying to pry that thing off his face, and finally did so in dramatic closeup and it's Mel Gibson (albeit thirty years older), audiences would have went APE for it. Even a film as ultimately disappointing as Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull got this right, with Harrison Ford getting hauled out of a car trunk and picking up his famous hat and settling it on his head in silhouette (while the Raiders March slowly accelerates on the soundtrack) before finally turning to face the camera. Imagine the exact same scene...only it would be Chris Pratt (or whoever they inevitably choose to replace Ford) revealing his face. It would have ZERO impact. It just smacks of a bad business decision all around, resurrecting a franchise that released its last installment THIRTY YEARS ago and not even giving fans of the original trilogy the frisson of seeing the original star reprising his role. Today's teenagers and college students (the audience this film is clearly aimed at) have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER who Mad Max as a character is supposed to be...they might have heard their parents talk about the earlier movies in passing, but they surely have not actually watched them. Franchises like Indiana Jones, Star Wars or even Alien have never really gone away in the public consciousness (even if just in stuff like video games and crappy Alien vs. Predator sequels), but Max as a pop-culture figure essentially vanished by the end of the 80's when the post-apocalypse action subgenre he helped invent dried up...nowadays, "post-apocalypse" movies are basically antiseptic fare like The Hunger Games and its assorted ripoffs, which just use their concept as a broad high school metaphor and are more concerned with chaste love triangles than actually examining their post-apocalypse societies. While I'm glad this movie exists, I have NO idea what the studio was thinking allowing the budget to balloon to such an absurd degree, and I doubt we'll ever see another entry.

Great post MJ, agreed with all of that. Perhaps that's what irritated Hardy as well -- he didn't have a handle on the role because Miller initially wanted Gibson (years back), and Mel is the only one who would've had a firm handle on the part. The part isn't developed, it's just THERE, and the only way that would work is if Gibson came back.

I seriously think they made a major commercial miscalculation, to say nothing of an artistic one, not bringing him back. At 59, he couldn't have played the part? I guess a few years ago when he was going bonkers it was a problem, but it's a shame Miller didn't have more faith in him because this movie needed him, really.

The other thing with MAD MAX -- did those movies "make" Mel Gibson, or did Mel Gibson popularize those films? I mean, they were not $100 million blockbusters in North America. They were profitable, but like a lot of these remakes, it seems some "prognosticators" use revisionist history -- or have just a lack of knowledge -- about what the originals were in the first place. This property means nothing to younger viewers, so unless you are a geek, fanboy, aging nerd like us, the title doesn't mean anything, like you said. Take Gibson away and how viable a property was this to begin with? Charlize is a good actress, but she's never sold tickets on her own accord, and neither has Hardy.

I also think Entertainment Weekly said it well, when they said the film ultimately "goes nowhere." They wrote pretty much what I said before, that this is a very MODERN blockbuster in every way: it's sound, fury, effects and bombast. It doesn't have any underneath, and it doesn't have any dramatic weight to it. That's the disappointment. The difference is this movie is better made and more exciting than the likes of AGE OF ULTRON, but it ultimately gives you the same feeling every current studio film does.

It's a "ride," it's a rush, but then it's over, and it leaves you with little to take away from it.

AndyDursin wrote:I seriously think they made a major commercial miscalculation, to say nothing of an artistic one, not bringing him back. At 59, he couldn't have played the part?

Considering how much CGI would have assisted Mel in the physical side of the role, it makes no sense that would not have asked him back...Harrison Ford was sixty-five in Crystal Skull, and pulled off the stuntwork fine (whatever you may think of the film as a whole, Ford was clearly game and enthusiastic). Since Max spends much of the film behind the wheel anyways, it wouldn't have been that difficult for a 59-year-old actor to handle, especially one in decent shape as Gibson appeared in the recent interview on the Scream Factory Mad Max Blu. Look at the Expendables movies, and how ancient are the majority of the actors in those? Gibson held his own in the third movie just fine. And although the movie was problematic, Gibson did very well five years back in Edge Of Darkness (tragic Boston accent aside ). Just sad that Gibson can't get better work than Expendables 3 or Machete Kills these days.