[Closed] Mad Max. is it just me?

Your not alone. I too thought it was a big pile of *!%#

Didn't enjoy it. Just sat here watching the original Mad Max now, much betterer

Thoroughly enjoyed it, and I usually hate car chases

Thought it looked stunning, but it didn't do anything else for me.

Mindless action just simple entertainment.

Load of rubbish.

It's not just you, it only has a rotten tomatoes score of 97% and metacritic score of 90% so there must be at least a couple of dozen other people that didn't think it was INCREDIBLY AWESOME like right-thinking folks.

Looked good, OK film, far better than the bilge that is Spectre.

yeah, it's just you.

I watched it, but can't remember anything about it.
Make of that what you will.

Seen it twice and both times left me going meh, just doesn't work for me

Ming just watched Spectre again and enjoyed it more than first time.

What Drac said

I liked it - ridiculous, for sure, but sometimes I quite like things blowing up all over the place.

love mad max films. Mel is ace.
this was total shit.

Came out of the cinema needing a stiff drink, was pretty intense.

Not sure that it translates to a smaller screen, but am more than happy to watch it again.

Is this the new one? Absolute shite. It's everything I hate about a film. No plot whatsoever. Even the best action movies need a story. It's 2 hours of mindless CGI.

So you missed the story then?

New mad max lets drive over there to meet some old ladies then drive back.

Awful film that is pointless

New mad max lets drive over there to meet some old ladies then drive back.

😆

So you missed the story then?

I'm sure someone in the film maybe talked about a story or something. But it definitely bypassed me.

I thought it was crap as well. Just didn't see the point of it.

I'm sure someone in the film maybe talked about a story or something. But it definitely bypassed me.

Not sure that's the films fault.

Yep, I gave up when it was 2/3 through and went to bed........

I was disappoint. Too many "going full speed, change up a gear go faster" scenes. Err, why weren't you in that gear before??!

Well that post went better than expected. However we've sat here and watched till the end. I do wish the synopsis on sky had said

New mad max lets drive over there to meet some old ladies then drive back.

I thought Charlize Theron was a lot more like Max from the original films than Tom Hardy.
Saying that though, I still really enjoyed it at the cinema.

I'm sure someone in the film maybe talked about a story or something. But it definitely bypassed me.

Not sure that's the films fault.

If the film is hideously boring from start to finish, then I would argue that it is 😉

loved it.

But not everything is for everyone. Just because you didn't like a piece of music/film/comedy doesn't mean it isn't good.

2 hours of mindless CGI

You'd actually be surprised how little was actually CGI, George Miller doesn't really like CGI.

Loved the film, like tinker tailor isn't a film about spying but the complicated relationships between people mad max isn't really about the cars. It's a great story and perhaps a fine bond audition for Tom Hardy

You'd actually be surprised how little was actually CGI, George Miller doesn't really like CGI.

You must have seen an uncut version.

I enjoyed it, and was surprised I did. I don't normally like stuff blowing up constantly films. But I'd had a bad week and it was just full on fast and loud. I think one of the reasons I liked it is that it reminds me of graphic novels and comics of my youth. Sparse dialogue against a stylised backdrop. Not big and endless exposition that comes with modern high concept sci-fi.

As I said I was surprised, my normal film watching is more likely to be the lives of others or hunger or the machinist to name three films I've watched in the last few weeks and enjoyed

Edit

Wow, somebody didn't enjoy a film that lots of other people did. [i]There's[/i] a surprise. 🙄

2 hours of mindless CGI

fin25 is right - a lot of Mad Max was done with physical stunts, not CGI.

I wasn't entirely persuaded by the plot, but I was completely bowled over by how well the whole thing was done and how gorgeous it looked.

Apparently it is to be released in [url= http://www.slashfilm.com/fury-road-black-and-white-version/ ]black & white[/url], which Miller likes the idea of very much.

We spent a lot of time in DI (digital intermediate), and we had a very fine colorist, Eric Whipp. One thing I’ve noticed is that the default position for everyone is to de-saturate post-apocalyptic movies. There’s only two ways to go, make them black and white — [b]the best version of this movie is black and white[/b], but people reserve that for art movies now. The other version is to really go all-out on the color. The usual teal and orange thing? That’s all the colors we had to work with. The desert’s orange and the sky is teal, and we either could de-saturate it, or crank it up, to differentiate the movie. Plus, it can get really tiring watching this dull, de-saturated color, unless you go all the way out and make it black and white.

🙂

I saw it on an airplane. I thought it was actually really very good and a lot better than I was expecting.

And it's currently romping through the Oscars list, most successful film this year.

You have to scroll down through all the big Oscars first though to find out which ones it won.

Must give it another try - think I got through 30 minutes or so and gave up. Post-apoc is probably my favourite genre so I must be missing something.

fin25 is right - a lot of Mad Max was done with physical stunts, not CGI.

Eh? It has loads of CGI in it. Not that I mind that in films as there's some things really can't be done without it.

If you haven't seen it yet, start a fire in your garden, then throw loads of dolls on it. Same thing.

I fast-forwarded through most of it. But then I'm old school, and like things like plots that make sense, character development etc. And I am pretty sure that Tom Hardy chap attended Joey's "Smell The Fart" school of acting. You know, staring into the middle distance with a "who dropped that one" expression.

However, it wasn't nearly as rubbish as Mad Max 3 now was it ?

However, it wasn't nearly as rubbish as Mad Max 3 now was it ?

Loved that as a kid but then I seen it as an adult, I even tried again the other day. Yeah it's not good it has some good scenes in it but sploilt by others.

I thought it was pretty pants - the first half was decent enough but when they finally get away from the pursuers it's like the writers just ran out of ideas so the second half has them retracing their route and going through the same stuff as the first half.

I rented it from iTunes when it became available but I failed to finish it, different folk like different stuff and I imagine many folk would think my fav film of last year "under the skin" is a bit pants.

I miss the Valiant Chargers and leather trousers of the original...

I tried to watch it twice and failed both times. Admittedly it was post-pub

Eh? It has loads of CGI in it. Not that I mind that in films as there's some things really can't be done without it.

Did you watch the videos I posted Drac? The first one shows some of the physical stunts they did on set. Things like cars flipping, fireballs and motorcross jumps. Even Tom Hardy as a hood ornament was a real stunt. All stuff that would typically be CG.

There [i]was[/i] obviously a lot of CGI in it though, as the second video shows, but as the third video points out pretty much every modern high budget film uses CGI, even the terribly serious ones with actual plots.

I walked out with a " What just happened? " level of confusion. To be fair though I hadnt seen #1 or #2 so it didnt really work for me.
Too loud, silly plot, just weird with the mothers milk etc

Clearly it was just a bit too avant garde for the hard of thinking. The people who dislike it are probably the type of person who consider Braveheart or Gladiator to be "the best film ever made".

Did you watch the videos I posted Drac? The first one shows some of the physical stunts they did on set. Things like cars flipping, fireballs and motorcross jumps. Even Tom Hardy as a hood ornament was a real stunt. All stuff that would typically be CG.

I watched the first but I've seen photos already too. I agree it's done well but to say there's very little CGI really is wrong.

After this thread I watched one of these on Sky Movies the other day, the one where they're chasing the Brides around a desert.

Rubbish.

I am another who just gave up on it after about 1/2 an hour, it really wasn't going anywhere, made thunderdome look good.

I also don't get the hardy love in, the only decent part he has played was Bronson, everything else he has done his part could have been played by any other generic actor and it would have made no difference to the film.

to say there's very little CGI really is wrong.

Agreed, I think it would be more accurate to say that something more like "there are more practical stunts and less CGI than you would typically see in a big budget movie of this genre". Yeah?

It was total crap imo 😆

Yup I'd say that Graham.

After this thread I watched one of these on Sky Movies the other day, the one where they're chasing the Brides around a desert.

Really? Are you a time traveller?

Don't care about the cgi vs stunts personally, was still a good film and I think for some people a little too deep...

I never said there was very little CGI, I said you'd be surprised how little was CGI. They could have made most of the film using CGI, as most current film-makers would. Instead, George Miller chose to do as much of it with physical stunts as possible, using CGI to enhance the overall look and atmosphere of the film (and filling in where practical stunts would just be too dangerous).
My response was to a comment claiming that the film was 2 hours of CGI, which is a criticism that can be levelled at many current action films. Unfortunately, this film is an example of physical effects done very well and CGI used with restraint.
Therefore, someone who thinks the film is two hours of constant CGI would be surprised how (relatively) little of what they think is CGI is actually CGI, but is actually physical stunt work.
Happy?
😉

Fair enough I took it the wrong way, sorry.

Saw it in the cinema first time around.. was bored silly. Downloaded it and saw it for a second time, with no real expectations of anything really (other than it probably being a bit pointless)... and it had kinda grown on me. I still wouldn't say it's a great film, but it's silly, watchable stuff. Very taupe and orange though.

And I am pretty sure that Tom Hardy chap attended Joey's "Smell The Fart" school of acting. You know, staring into the middle distance with a "who dropped that one" expression.

Mad Max was a good crowdpleaser - it's the type of film which we all used to go and watch in the 80s/90s but has been done poorly since. I think it achieved what it set out to do well.
Definitely not a 'highlight of the year' type movie for me though.

MSP - Member

made thunderdome look good.

Thunderdome is total genius though. Properly cracked.

It was ok entertainment of the "loud CGI blockbuster" variety but I couldn't understand all the fuss really.

Oscar-worthy? Not so sure.

MSP - Member
made thunderdome look good.

Thunderdome is total genius though. Properly cracked.

+1. One of my favourite Pocky-clipse movies.

Clearly it was just a bit too avant garde for the hard of thinking. The people who dislike it are probably the type of person who consider Braveheart or Gladiator to be "the best film ever made".

How rude.
The average age and intellect of the tiny cross scetion of society that is the STW chat department would tend to disagree with you.

Yet you still persue the arguement that the people who dont like something that you do 'must be hard of thinking'? Or could they just have a difference of opinion on what is 'good' cinema , and what isn't.

Yet you still persue the arguement that the people who dont like something that you do 'must be hard of thinking'? Or could they just have a difference of opinion on what is 'good' cinema , and what isn't.

The first one with Mel was so good because it didn't take itself so seriously.
It was camp, overracted and very funny.

I thought the new one was pretty good, but you can't, by definition, make a good sequel from a surprise hit.
The surprise was half of the fun.

Didn't read all of the 2nd page, but what Choppersquad said: it's not really about Max, it's about Imperator Furiosa (?!). You could remove him from the film entirely and not lose anything.

Visually it was great to watch. Storyline, not so much.

In terms of what a 'reboot' of Mad Max could've been in these days of box-office fodder this was an incredible triumph of film-making and entertainment.

A 70 year old film director - threw everything he could at the screen to bring a bold, exciting and visceral update of some classic movies.

If you didn't like it - chances are you didn't like Mad Max the first time around. But this film was so much better than it should've been.

I don't think I would ever convince anyone who didn't like it though.

What threads like this perfectly illustrate is how people confuse their own preferences with good and bad. Mad Max by the large majority of impartial opinion, of its type is a good film.
That doesn't mean everybody is going to like it we have different tastes. But if something has inherent merit it's not "crap" or rubbish it's just that you don't like it.

Exactly Taxi for example I found The Revenant utterly boring, beautifully filmed and Leonardo was pretty good but it was just dull.

The Revenant utterly boring, beautifully filmed and Leonardo was pretty good but it was just dull.

Not seen it but this is pretty much a somethingion of most of the reviews I read or heard.

Lets just admit it, last year was a poor year for mainstream movies.

😆 flippin heck there is some crap being talked on here, I didn't like Fury Road that much but it is a technically fantastic film, that doesn't mean I am somehow flawed as a person or my cat should be ritually slaughtered.

I think Quantum of Solace is underrated and A life less ordinary is a great film, that seems to go against the general zeitgeist*

sleeping with the dictionary again 😉

So Taxi thinks it's good and therefore it's not allowed to be called crap.

Personally I thought it was crap, so by your reckoning I can say it's not allowed to be called good?

Some people liked Titanic, and that won some Oscars as well. Personally it's on my all time crap films list......

Hahaha.

Several of you are just wrong. LOLz

apparently i really meant it

It was total crap imo

They did a great job of sewing her arm back on, you would never know it's been chopped off.

I really enjoyed Mad Max Fury Road, didn't think it was as world shattering as some of the reviews suggested though.

I can understand that sometimes massively critically acclaimed films can leave people cold though - I thought The Revenant was really dull and occasionally unintentionally funny (alternate title: Leo's Bad Day), and was massively disappointed by Zodiac (several hours of the police being miserable over several years because they're getting nowhere).