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

[DanH1972]

I loved that show.



When guys like Mankiewicz were at their creative heights, there were plenty of people that said that Hollywood was terrible and used to be much better. Since the time that the second movie ever made came out, there's been people that have said that Hollywood ain't what it used to be. So either a century old complaint has finally come true and everything is terrible or it's all in the eye of the beholder.

A little of both, but I think over all quality has slipped. Hollywood feels the need to play it safe and that tends to affect what they put out. They're also more interested in selling to the overseas market rather than getting the bulk of their return in the U.S. When that happens, great dialog and subtlety get thrown right out the window.


Big booms with characters having little meaningful to say are much easier to translate.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Story is what rewards repeat viewings of great films. Plot is simply the skeleton story hangs on.

The Godfather would be far less interesting if one re-viewed it to see the plot take its course again. It's the story and the characters that invites viewers back, along with the techniques of filmmaking that encapsulate them.

MM:FR tells its story predominantly like a great silent film. It's mostly visual clues that define the characters, their motivations, the world they inhabit, etc. There's great, great depth there that far outruns its runtime.

There's also fantastic spectacle story-telling that is a staple of classic filmmaking, from the days of silent epics, to the 50s spectacles, through the 80s action classics. A film like Aliens, with Cameron's keen eye for directing a viewers' sightlines between shots, is an apt comparison. In MM:FR, despite the giant set pieces and large cast of enemy attackers coming from multiple angles, Miller is able to keep the sightlines for the viewer clean and direct.

For example, he'll follow a guy being kicked off the rig from middle-right of frame over to bottom-left of frame, and then a new attacking vehicle will come into frame right after the man disappears from the bottom-left of frame back to the middle of the frame before the cut so that the viewer has a logical understanding of the spacial relationship between the rig and the new attackers.

Another example of setting up information in shorthand for a later scene: When Max awakens from the dust storm a short scene establishes the workings of the chain, the cardoor between him and Nux, and the faulty shotgun. So later in his fight with Furiosa we already have a grasp of how these work with each other (or in the case of the shotgun don't work), and therefore we can follow the logic of an extremely rapid fight without having to be told during the fight how the chain and door will inform how the fight will play out.

This is a film that WILL be taught in college courses on how to present exposition through means outside of overt dialogue.

I'm not saying one needs to like the film, but there is considerable depth and subtext in the film.

Yes, the plot is very plain - repressed people escape and after chases they take control of former oppressive home. But it has a whole lot to say about the world, the way people take advantage of those who they perceive to be weak, and the mettle it can take to break through such restrictive environments.

 

[DalekFlay]

Solid action movie I greatly enjoyed, though I don't really understand why some love it like the second-coming of action movies. In any event, can't wait to own it. Glad the disc is as perfect as one would expect a new-release movie to be.

 

[Reed Grele]

Great special effects. One of the better uses of 3D out there. Will need to turn on the subtitles though, as I had a hard time with some of the dialog.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Great special effects. One of the better uses of 3D out there. Will need to turn on the subtitles though, as I had a hard time with some of the dialog.

That's exactly how I felt about the film as I did miss some of the spoken dialogue due to accented speech in the film.

 

[DanH1972]

Story is what rewards repeat viewings of great films. Plot is simply the skeleton story hangs on.

The Godfather would be far less interesting if one re-viewed it to see the plot take its course again. It's the story and the characters that invites viewers back, along with the techniques of filmmaking that encapsulate them.

MM:FR tells its story predominantly like a great silent film. It's mostly visual clues that define the characters, their motivations, the world they inhabit, etc. There's great, great depth there that far outruns its runtime.

There's also fantastic spectacle story-telling that is a staple of classic filmmaking, from the days of silent epics, to the 50s spectacles, through the 80s action classics. A film like Aliens, with Cameron's keen eye for directing a viewers' sightlines between shots, is an apt comparison. In MM:FR, despite the giant set pieces and large cast of enemy attackers coming from multiple angles, Miller is able to keep the sightlines for the viewer clean and direct.

For example, he'll follow a guy being kicked off the rig from middle-right of frame over to bottom-left of frame, and then a new attacking vehicle will come into frame right after the man disappears from the bottom-left of frame back to the middle of the frame before the cut so that the viewer has a logical understanding of the spacial relationship between the rig and the new attackers.

Another example of setting up information in shorthand for a later scene: When Max awakens from the dust storm a short scene establishes the workings of the chain, the cardoor between him and Nux, and the faulty shotgun. So later in his fight with Furiosa we already have a grasp of how these work with each other (or in the case of the shotgun don't work), and therefore we can follow the logic of an extremely rapid fight without having to be told during the fight how the chain and door will inform how the fight will play out.

This is a film that WILL be taught in college courses on how to present exposition through means outside of overt dialogue.

I'm not saying one needs to like the film, but there is considerable depth and subtext in the film.

Yes, the plot is very plain - repressed people escape and after chases they take control of former oppressive home. But it has a whole lot to say about the world, the way people take advantage of those who they perceive to be weak, and the mettle it can take to break through such restrictive environments.

I just don't see "Fury Road" as more than a good example of quality technical action filmmaking (blocking, camera usage, editing, etc. for stunt work). Though, even some of the practical stunts were augmented with CGI work. If colleges want to teach a course on exposition, there are far superior films as examples to delve into.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I just don't see "Fury Road" as more than a good example of quality technical action filmmaking (blocking, camera usage, editing, etc. for stunt work). Though, even some of the practical stunts were augmented with CGI work. If colleges want to teach a course on exposition, there are far superior films as examples to delve into.

I don't think anybody is debating with you about your opinion of this film, we just differ with our contrary opinion of it. It's how you feel about it and the rest of us should respect that opinion. With that said, I hope you extend the same courtesy to those of us that disagree with that opinion. In short, I seriously doubt we're going to convince each other to join the other side in this argument. In the future, I hope you have better film experiences at your future cinema viewings, but I kind of doubt that based on your stated opinions regarding current state of Hollywood films. It is, what it is and that applies to all of us.

 

[kiwijunglist]

While the practical stunts (when used) were well orchestrated and a welcome reprieve from all the CGI porn we've been subjected to, I cannot say the same for the movie itself. Silly beyond belief.

Why do bad movies get such good sound mixes???

Mad max had heaps and heaps of cgi. Most of the frames had at least some cgi in them. It was just well done cgi so you didn't notice it. There is a YouTube video about all the cgi that was in it.

 

[Salacious Ackbar]

While the practical stunts (when used) were well orchestrated and a welcome reprieve from all the CGI porn we've been subjected to, I cannot say the same for the movie itself. Silly beyond belief.


Why do bad movies get such good sound mixes???

Fury Road has over 1,500 shots with substantial digital effects. They are usually blended seamlessly.


Fury Road is the best action film that I can think of from the past 10-15 years. Probably since Speed, to be honest.

I just don't see "Fury Road" as more than a good example of quality technical action filmmaking (blocking, camera usage, editing, etc. for stunt work). Though, even some of the practical stunts were augmented with CGI work. If colleges want to teach a course on exposition, there are far superior films as examples to delve into.

There are few films that tell a story so perfectly almost purely with visuals. I can only think of directors like George Lucas, Jackie Chan, and silent film directors who are so adept at telling a story visually, whether that be with action, framing, color, or editing.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I just don't see "Fury Road" as more than a good example of quality technical action filmmaking (blocking, camera usage, editing, etc. for stunt work). Though, even some of the practical stunts were augmented with CGI work. If colleges want to teach a course on exposition, there are far superior films as examples to delve into.

Gotta agree. I've now seen "MM:FR" twice - once theatrically, once 3D Blu-ray - and I find myself less than entertained/enchanted by the movie. It just seems like style over substance to me - lotsa crazy makeup and costumes, lotsa action/stunts, no real meat to it.


I appreciate comments that interpret the film's "depth", but I don't agree with them. Sometimes people see meaning that isn't actually there.


I love big old action movies and feel like I should enjoy "MM:FR", but frankly, it leaves me fairly bored. Maybe I'll try again a year or so down the (fury) road, but since I liked it even less the second time around - when I had lower expectations than the first - I'm not optimistic...

 

[Tino]

And sometime people miss meaning that actually there. [emoji12]

 

[Tino]

And btw Colin, you hate everything remember?[emoji13]

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And btw Colin, you hate everything remember?[emoji13]

Well, ya got me there!


I guess this is my backwards summer. I was bored with the massively praised "MM:FR" - and I was entertained by the completely panned "Fantastic Four"!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And sometime people miss meaning that actually there. [emoji12]

Definitely! Eye of the beholder, man - eye of the beholder!

 

[Oblivion138]

I found both Gravity and Fury Road to be white-knuckle experiences. Perhaps you are simply immune to excitement? :p

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I found both Gravity and Fury Road to be white-knuckle experiences. Perhaps you are simply immune to excitement?

Not sure if you mean me, but I liked "Gravity":


http://www.dvdmg.com/gravity.shtml

 

[Oblivion138]

Sorry...should have been more specific in my reply. Which was to Dan.

Stunts and gyro cameras only go so far and just don't hold my attention for very long without some semblance of cohesive story that wasn't just written on a napkin as a means to tie action set pieces together... to go along with the flash and bang. Gravity, for instance, is a great demo for Dolby Atmos, but everything else about it is wafer thin. I'd only watch it to show off my audio system.

 

[zoetmb]

I loved that show.



When guys like Mankiewicz were at their creative heights, there were plenty of people that said that Hollywood was terrible and used to be much better. Since the time that the second movie ever made came out, there's been people that have said that Hollywood ain't what it used to be. So either a century old complaint has finally come true and everything is terrible or it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Well, I think several things have indeed changed. While Hollywood always wanted to make profits, the studio heads in the heyday of Hollywood had huge power, even though they ran public corporations. And so to satisfy their egos, they always made some prestige pictures. And many of those are the ones we remember.


And while Hollywood always made tons of bad films, they also made lots of truly great films. I was watching "Twelve Angry Men" the other night and thought about the fact that a film like that could never be made today, in spite of the fact that it was made for only $350,000 ($2.97 million in 2015 dollars).


Production budgets and marketing costs are so huge today, films must obtain a mass audience and so the "lowest common denominator" rule applies.


Home video is obviously having a huge effect on Hollywood - there are demographics that hardly go to the movies anymore at all. (Although the theatrical business has been in decline since 1946).


And the international marketplace, especially China, has become much more important. Almost all films now do more internationally (and China's revenues alone will probably soon exceed U.S. box-office) than in the U.S. and this has changed the types of films that get financed and made (and much of the financing comes from outside the U.S.). As others have posted, it seems like what used to construe intelligent, adult films have now moved to cable and the web.


The question you should ask is whether you're seeing greater or fewer current theatrical films than you used to. I'm seeing far fewer films. I'm only occasionally interested in a comic-book movie and there are very few new films that interest me- I look at the trailers and I'm always afraid that I'm going to be bored or I don't want to spend the money at today's high NYC movie prices. I probably used to go see a movie almost every week. The last two films I saw theatrically were "Mr. Holmes" and "Love and Mercy". Before that, I also saw "Gravity" and "Interstellar" theatrically. That's not a lot for that time period.


I probably would have seen Fury Road theatrically, but it disappeared from the good screens relatively quickly. That's another difference in today's market: films generally play theatrically for just a few weeks.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I look at the trailers and I'm always afraid that I'm going to be bored or I don't want to spend the money at today's high NYC movie prices.

I find that trailers today can show too much, they give far too much away, i now find myself trying to avoid the trailers and going into the film cold, i haven't seen Mad Max: Fury Road, i'm fussy about my 3D too, it's out in the UK next month, i may buy it.


I view Mel Gibson as Mad Max and i might find it hard to view another actor in the role although i'll give Tom Hardy a chance.

 

[DanH1972]

I find that trailers today can show too much, they give far too much away, i now find myself trying to avoid the trailers and going into the film cold, i haven't seen Mad Max: Fury Road, i'm fussy about my 3D too, it's out in the UK next month, i may buy it.


I view Mel Gibson as Mad Max and i might find it hard to view another actor in the role although i'll give Tom Hardy a chance.

Hardy's Max doesn't seem to be the main focus of the film this time around. He grunts a few lines, but that's about it.