A Few Words About A few words about...™ Mad Max Fury Road - 3D -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[TheBat]

I watched this in 3D this evening and was tremendously entertained. Like The Road Warrior so many decades ago when I first saw it, this delivered slambang action, thrills, and stunts at such a frenzied pace that it was hard to catch my breath while watching. There are a couple of rest sequences while our protagonists regroup and then it's off again for more relentless action.


Gorgeously shot and looks fantastic in 3D. For action fans, you won't want to miss it.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/478809-witness-me#/slide/1


news about the theatre release of mad max 4 in imax 3d. september 11, 2015.


enjoy.


Jacob

 

[revgen]

Great news!


I was extremely fortunate to watch Mad Max Fury Road at the Chinese Theater IMAX. A week later I saw it with my brother at a typical RealD multiplex theater. I still enjoyed it, but it simply wasn't the same experience.


This film really needs to be seen on large screens to do it justice. If you only saw it in RealD, I highly recommend seeing it on the larger IMAX screens.

 

[Dick]

Once again, I agree with the bulk of your post (especially about blaming the audience because if people saw something other than comic book movies, Hollywood would gladly make something else) but that agreement doesn't mean that I think that Hollywood has completely forgotten how to make good movies. Yes, there's crap but there's still good stuff too.


What movies that I've liked in the last 2 years isn't really relevant other than to enable people to say "You're an idiot, that movie sucks!" but I see about 60 to 70 movies in a theater each year which is as much as I've ever seen. Obviously, I'm not the average moviegoer because I see probably 10 times what a normal person sees and I watch everything from the big blockbusters to smaller 'art' pictures.

Travis, when I was a young man during the 60's and 70's, I had you beat in spades. I almost NEVER missed going to the movies at least once a week, often more, and at the two-screen cinema nearby I would frequently sneak into the second movie after watching the first. Sometimes I darted all over town in order to catch three movies in a day (I did four once, including a double feature at the drive-in). Of course, that was all pre-video, and during the days when movies were much more often challenging and thoughtful. Now, with a nice big-screen plasma, I prefer watching at home. Less hassle, and not much more expense.


Inadvertently, of course, I am adding to the Hollywood problem, because most of the films I really want to see are smaller, more intimate ones that I feel I can wait for until the Blu-ray comes out, when I can view them in the privacy of my home and not be distracted by cell phones and rude, annoying chatter. The movies I do rarely attend anymore are mostly the big blockbusters like JURASSIC WORLD 3-D, which simply seem to demand an enormous screen and DTS sound. And, of course, by supporting mostly these big films at the box office while waiting for the rest on video, I add to the studio perception that more intelligent, plot and character-oriented films are not what people want. It's a kind of Catch-22 thing.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Does anyone know? At Best Buy, there is a DVD version that seems to have an exclusive bonus content disc (2 DVDs). I couldn't find a picture of it on the internet or anywhere. There is a sticker that says that on the shrinkwrap. They also have the BD version, but since that version has a BD disc and just one DVD, I'm thinking there is no extra content there. So I'm thinking about picking up that DVD version just to see what's what. ??

 

[Walter Kittel]

First viewing yesterday was a mostly positive experience while certain aspects of the film put me off a bit...


Visually the film is stunning. No doubt.

The pace of the film works well with stretches where the viewer can catch their breath before all Hell breaks loose (again.)

The action sequences are incredibly well staged and executed and are undeniably spectacular.

The feminist themes of the film are surprisingly strong and represent an interesting choice for a film in this series, which leads me to the problems...


I can't help but feel that the character of Max was 'nerfed' to prevent the character from overshadowing the feminist themes of the film. I believe just about any competent actor who can emote and present a physically robust character could have portrayed Max, as written, in this film. I'm a pretty big fan of Tom Hardy and essentially it felt like the film did not really utilize his abilities as an actor. I'm sure some will argue this point with a 'less is more' statement regarding minimalistic acting; but sometimes 'less is less' and that felt like the case for me.


If you are going to call your film 'Mad Max: Fury Road' then don't sideline Max. When the character 'War Boy Nux' has more dialog than the title character of the film; I'd suggest that the priorities need some re-arranging.


- Walter.

 

[Oblivion138]

When Max is found, he's basically in a feral state. Conversation, even rudimentary conversation, is something that has to develop over the course of the film. This isn't sidelining, it is the character's arc. Fury Road is a film about Max finding some connection to humanity again. Fury Road is as much his story as Road Warrior was, or Beyond Thunderdome. Those films also follow the same basic template. Max shows up in the lives of a group of people, and helps them to achieve their goals. These films aren't really about Max's own goals. Like Caine in Kung Fu, or TV's Incredible Hulk, Max wanders the Wasteland, stopping occasionally to help those in need of help. And in doing so, their story becomes his story...at least for a time. When their goals are achieved, he's off again. That is his primary function.


Lines of dialogue do not equate to importance to the story.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Fury Road is as much his story as Road Warrior was, or Beyond Thunderdome. Those films also follow the same basic template. Max shows up in the lives of a group of people, and helps them to achieve their goals. These films aren't really about Max's own goals.

In those other films the character Max was much more actively engaged throughout the runtime of the feature. His character was driving the narrative and was the centerpiece of most of the action. In Fury Road, not so much.


- Walter.

 

[Robert Crawford]

In those other films the character Max was much more actively engaged throughout the runtime of the feature. His character was driving the narrative and was the centerpiece of most of the action. In Fury Road, not so much.


- Walter.

Very true, but I still think Fury Road is a very good action film.

 

[Bryan^H]

Here is an interesting article regarding Mel Gibson not starring in Fury Road:

http://nypost.com/2015/05/09/mad-max-creator-on-why-mel-gibson-was-cut-from-fury-road/

 

[Tino]

I love how the title of that piece is "Why I cut Mel Gibson from Fury Road" courtesy of the New York Post of course.

Here is the relevant quote. One paragraph in a long article.

"By the time we got there, not only had Mel hit all the turbulence in his life, but this is not a ‘Mad Max’ in which he’s an old warrior,” the director says. “He’s meant to be that same contemporary warrior. I guess in the same way that James Bond had been played by various people, it was time to hand over the mantle.”

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Lines of dialogue do not equate to importance to the story.

Very true. I started in on the Mad Max Anthology Blu-Ray release last night, which includes 20th Century Fox's Blu-Ray of the first film. While Max is undeniably the center of that film in a way that he is not in Fury Road, he actually has very little dialog in it, either.


Max is an archetypal Western character, like Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name. His taciturn nature is part of that mystique.


(Another interesting observation from going back to the start: while the world of Mad Max is undeniably desolate, it's positively lush compared to the world of Fury Road. Part of that is undoubtedly the fact that Max is much deeper into the Outback in Fury Road than he was in the first film. But in fitting with my pet theory that Tom Hardy's Max is actually a separate character with a similar backstory to Gibson's Max, to whom the stories surrounding Gibson's Max started to cling, I like to think that if the first film was only a few years into the future then Fury Road is decades after that, as the further effects of the cataclysm have more fully reshaped what's left of humanity.)

 

[Oblivion138]

In those other films the character Max was much more actively engaged throughout the runtime of the feature. His character was driving the narrative and was the centerpiece of most of the action. In Fury Road, not so much.


- Walter.

Everything that we encounter in Fury Road, we encounter through Max. The film follows him as he meets these new characters, and we meet them along with him. He becomes very much a party to what they are doing, and absolutely integral to their ultimate triumph. In essence, it is very much the same structure as Road Warrior, but with Max starting out in a much more detached, feral state. Though much has been made of Max playing "second fiddle" in Fury Road, I just don't see it. His is the predominant character arc in the film. It's Max who really makes that journey, not so much Furiosa. Her character arc obviously took place before the film. She's much the same character at the end that she was at the outset. Max, meanwhile, has learned to reconnect with people, to fight for what's important, and to embrace rather than reject hope. If that doesn't mark him as the protagonist of the film, and the center of its narrative, I don't know what could.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Everything that we encounter in Fury Road, we encounter through Max. The film follows him as he meets these new characters, and we meet them along with him. He becomes very much a party to what they are doing, and absolutely integral to their ultimate triumph. In essence, it is very much the same structure as Road Warrior, but with Max starting out in a much more detached, feral state. Though much has been made of Max playing "second fiddle" in Fury Road, I just don't see it. His is the predominant character arc in the film. It's Max who really makes that journey, not so much Furiosa. Her character arc obviously took place before the film. She's much the same character at the end that she was at the outset. Max, meanwhile, has learned to reconnect with people, to fight for what's important, and to embrace rather than reject hope. If that doesn't mark him as the protagonist of the film, and the center of its narrative, I don't know what could.

Unlike the Gibson films in which he dominated those movies, Furiosa did have a bigger part of this film than any of the secondary characters in Gibson's films. She was like a co-star in Fury and to deny that point is kind of surprising to me. Furthermore, this point of view isn't a criticism of this film as I think it's one of the best summer films this year.

 

[Oblivion138]

Unlike the Gibson films in which he dominated those movies, Furiosa did have a bigger part of this film than any of the secondary characters in Gibson's films. She was like a co-star in Fury and to deny that point is kind of surprising to me. Furthermore, this point of view isn't a criticism of this film as I think it's one of the best summer films this year.

I'm not denying that she is a co-star. Of course she's a co-star. And Tina Turner was a co-star in Beyond Thunderdome. Having a co-star and being sidelined are not the same thing. My point is that Max is not sidelined in Fury Road. He is there for every plot development, and his input is absolutely crucial to the success of Furiosa's mission (the nature of which completely changes, and Max is the one who decides its final direction and outcome).

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm not denying that she is a co-star. Of course she's a co-star. And Tina Turner was a co-star in Beyond Thunderdome. Having a co-star and being sidelined are not the same thing. My point is that Max is not sidelined in Fury Road. He is there for every plot development, and his input is absolutely crucial to the success of Furiosa's mission (the nature of which completely changes, and Max is the one who decides its final direction and outcome).

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the Tina Tury analogy. Also, I don't believe Walter said Max was sidelined in this film. I think you're seeing more in his comments than there's actually there.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Actually, I did say 'sidelined'. But to be clear; I should have restricted that term to describe his status in the opening 1/4 or 1/3 of the film, or thereabouts. Obviously he begins to take a more active role after his eventual escape; but even then much of his action is reactionary in nature, with Furiosa driving (much, but not all) the narrative forward through her choices. I would agree that Theron was at the very least Hardy's co-star, and possibly a more important character in some ways with regards to the plot of the film. (BTW, I completely disagree with the Tina Turner analogy as well.)


I did enjoy the film, but I was expecting Max to be the central character; not a co-star (at best) and I do believe that Hardy was under-utilized. Just my opinion - no one has to agree with me.


Regarding dialog; no there is no absolute rule that dialog always equates to importance in a story, but I do believe it could be considered an axiom. Stated another way if one were to chart the lines of dialog in a broad selection of films, per character - I would argue that the odds are very good that the leading characters will have the highest percentage of lines in a large majority of features. There is no doubt that Eastwood was the model of the taciturn character in the Leone Westerns and he had plenty of dialog in those films. In Fury Road, I believe it (the amount of dialog) is a good indicator of Max's lessened status when compared to Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. Once again, just my thoughts and opinions.


- Walter.

 

[TravisR]

Unlike the Gibson films in which he dominated those movies, Furiosa did have a bigger part of this film than any of the secondary characters in Gibson's films. She was like a co-star in Fury...

I think part of that is that Charlize Theron is a bigger name than Tom Hardy (not a knock against Hardy, he's been wonderful in everything I've seen him in). It's just a reality that if they pay for a movie star like Theron, they're going to make sure she gets a good chunk of screen time.

 

[Oblivion138]

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the Tina Tury analogy. Also, I don't believe Walter said Max was sidelined in this film. I think you're seeing more in his comments than there's actually there.

No need to apologize...I'm not asking you to "buy" it.


And "sidelined" was Walter's exact phrase, so....

Actually, I did say 'sidelined'. But to be clear; I should have restricted that term to describe his status in the opening 1/4 or 1/3 of the film, or thereabouts. Obviously he begins to take a more active role after his eventual escape; but even then much of his action is reactionary in nature, with Furiosa driving (much, but not all) the narrative forward through her choices. I would agree that Theron was at the very least Hardy's co-star, and possibly a more important character in some ways with regards to the plot of the film. (BTW, I completely disagree with the Tina Turner analogy as well.)


I did enjoy the film, but I was expecting Max to be the central character; not a co-star (at best) and I do believe that Hardy was under-utilized. Just my opinion - no one has to agree with me.


Regarding dialog; no there is no absolute rule that dialog always equates to importance in a story, but I do believe it could be considered an axiom. Stated another way if one were to chart the lines of dialog in a broad selection of films, per character - I would argue that the odds are very good that the leading characters will have the highest percentage of lines in a large majority of features. There is no doubt that Eastwood was the model of the taciturn character in the Leone Westerns and he had plenty of dialog in those films. In Fury Road, I believe it (the amount of dialog) is a good indicator of Max's lessened status when compared to Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. Once again, just my thoughts and opinions.


- Walter.

I do agree that Max doesn't have much to do when he's in chains...but that's kind of the nature of being in chains. In a film that moves very quickly, however, that condition doesn't last particularly long, and it's all just part of his character's journey. Again, Furiosa doesn't have a real character arc. Max does. All Furiosa has is a mission. One which fails without Max. Her mission is a plot device to get Max from Point A on his character arc (a feral state, disconnected from humanity, haunted by the ghosts of his loved ones, terrified and disdainful of hope) to Point B (trusting in other people, believing in a righteous cause, and fighting to maintain and justify their hope). It's not about who has the most dialogue, or even the most screentime. It's about whose eyes we see the story through, and who has the greatest journey as a character. And that's not Furiosa. It's Max.

 

[Robert Crawford]

No need to apologize...I'm not asking you to "buy" it.

And "sidelined" was Walter's exact phrase, so....

Walter corrected me and further explain his POV which I agree with. So you and I don't agree here which happens on forums like this one.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think part of that is that Charlize Theron is a bigger name than Tom Hardy (not a knock against Hardy, he's been wonderful in everything I've seen him in). It's just a reality that if they pay for a movie star like Theron, they're going to make sure she gets a good chunk of screen time.

Yup!