"Mad Max: Fury Road"

[CMonster]

Can you read? I said it was a bad story where nothing happened. It was just boring. Driving a car and having cool stunts isn't the basis of a good movie in my book. Especially since literally thousands of those movies already exist and have done it much better. If it is for you, cool, I just need a bit more substance

Excuse me for assuming your image dump might be related to your critique of the movie when the conversation shifted to the realm of cgi. I apologize.

[Filligan]

Wow, you really missed the point

No, I think you did. Maybe read closer.

[Pickpocket]

Wow, you really missed the point

No, I think you did. Maybe read closer.

Great point, I missed the point that I made. Are you retarded?

[martryn]

Yeah, dudes, visually enhancing shots is not the same as filming the entire movie in front of a green screen. And those stunts and action sequences were all legit. There wasn't fake fire. There was real fucking fire, real people, real cars, real stunts. It was like watching a Jackie Chan movie. You know that there are nets and certain precautions are being taken, but that's a guy actually doing the shit that his character is doing, and that's what makes it so awesome.

Driving a car and having cool stunts isn't the basis of a good movie in my book. Especially since literally thousands of those movies already exist and have done it much better. If it is for you, cool, I just need a bit more substance

Which brings me back to my Stalker reference. Nothing fucking happens in the entire film, and yet it's largely considered a fantastic movie. I'm wondering if you think the movie would have been better had they not enhanced the landscapes. Not that you'd think the movie was any good because PLOT, but would it have been, in your opinion, a better film?

[Pickpocket]

Which brings me back to my Stalker reference. Nothing fucking happens in the entire film, and yet it's largely considered a fantastic movie. I'm wondering if you think the movie would have been better had they not enhanced the landscapes. Not that you'd think the movie was any good because PLOT, but would it have been, in your opinion, a better film?

Dude, your point is terrible. I didn't even like Stalker and can barely remember it. I can't argue with you in regards to this film. Stalker I gave a 4 and Mad Max got a 3. Basically the same to me.

And bro, you have Attack of the Clones in your tier 10. Maybe you just don't understand what good cinema is?

Yeah, dudes, visually enhancing shots is not the same as filming the entire movie in front of a green screen.

True but I don't understand what your point is.

And those stunts and action sequences were all legit. There wasn't fake fire.

The pictures I posted showed that it wasn't real fire. The fact that you think this is pretty absurd. No movie made today is going to have cars driving around on fire - there's too much liability.

There was real fucking fire, real people, real cars, real stunts.

Oh boy! My dick is hard now

It was like watching a Jackie Chan movie.

It really wasn't

You know that there are nets and certain precautions are being taken, but that's a guy actually doing the shit that his character is doing, and that's what makes it so awesome.

Again, seen it before. It's been done better before. Nothing new here just people calling George Miller a "visionary" for making new editions of the same movie for almost 40 years. You see what happens when this "visionary" strays off and does his own thing? Happy Feet and Happy Feet 2. He's a fraud and the people who love him are intellectually bankrupt.

Found a good video for you though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fufuluffQDY

[Bojangles]

I started out hating it because I'm not used to such a lack of exposition in a "mindless" Action movie. It took me until about the middle of the second act to realize that it wasn't poorly made, just a bit unconventional. I tend to zone out during expository dialogue anyway, so I kind of came to enjoy that there was a distinct lack of it. It made the bits of thematic dialogue all the more powerful. "If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane." Anyone want to analyze that particular line? It seems to be simultaneously addressing the characters' guilt as well as broader political themes. And a great delivery by Tom Hardy.

The first glamour shot of the flaming guitar guy made me understand why people love the movie--and also made me realize that it's is not for me. World-building does not excite me. I did enjoy the lack of reliance on CGI for stunts, but the quickness of the editing prevented me from fully appreciating the action. A few longer takes of intricate stunts might've fully immersed me. But I don't know, this is just me trying to figure out how this is a certified masterpiece--meanwhile I'm barely able to enjoy it.

[Suture Self]

To PickPocket and Bojangles: There was a tremendous amount of story. The only thing that seems to be throwing people off is that it was told within a highly dynamic environment. It's a story told with looks, implications, terse dialogue, facial expressions, and a physical (and mental) struggle that was constantly on the move. Every character's motivation is reflected in the action itself, almost always. It's called showing, not telling.

Something a friend of mine pointed out: As an example, take the ending scene with Max exchanging blood with Furiosa. Very little dialogue, not much exposition. Yet there's a sense that, in telling Furiosa his name, Max is just as much reaffirming his own humanity after spending years of his life being an isolated scavenger as he is making, for the first time on screen, an intimate and personal connection with another human being. In the beginning of the movie, he's a survivalist id and wants nothing to do with anyone, but towards the end of the movie he's found relationships worth dying for. In a way, this makes Max's narrative a combination of both a rebirth and origin story.

This is huge character evolution told with barely any dialogue or words. To the haters: I'd argue the movie is a lot more thoughtful than you're giving it credit for.

I think Fury Road's screenplay is outstanding, personally.

[CMonster]

But I don't know, this is just me trying to figure out how this is a certified masterpiece--meanwhile I'm barely able to enjoy it.

I would venture to guess that by next summer this will be looked back upon like The Dark Knight. People will stop calling it the greatest and no long claim it a masterpiece, but still justifying their love for it over one aspect. Just replace Ledger's performance with the practical stunts and effects.

[Suture Self]

Nah, I don't think this movie will lose its luster. This was like a shot of cocaine. Everyone loves cocaine.

[Pickpocket]

Something a friend of mine pointed out: As an example, take the ending scene with Max exchanging blood with Furiosa. Very little dialogue, not much exposition. Yet there's a sense that, in telling Furiosa his name, Max is just as much reaffirming his own humanity after spending years of his life being an isolated scavenger as he is making, for the first time on screen, an intimate and personal connection with another human being. In the beginning of the movie, he's a survivalist id and wants nothing to do with anyone, but towards the end of the movie he's found relationships worth dying for. In a way, this makes Max's narrative a combination of both a rebirth and origin story.

It's funny that you bring this point up. I looked at my friend when he refused to tell her his name originally and I said "she's going to get hurt somehow and he's going to tell her his name when she needs it later on." Why did I say this? Because I've seen this happen before in movies and in books and it's the same shit over again. Of course he was going to tell her his name. Not only do we know he's going to tell her his name because of the scene where he refused to tell her but also because of the title of the film. It wouldn't have made sense to not have that scene. It's not thoughtful, it's a typical structure of a story.

I would venture to guess that by next summer this will be looked back upon like The Dark Knight. People will stop calling it the greatest and no long claim it a masterpiece, but still justifying their love for it over one aspect. Just replace Ledger's performance with the practical stunts and effects.

I still see people call it the greatest action movie of all time and it's still ranked #4 on imdb's top 250 list. There's no way this movie is looked back on that fondly.

I think people are just so starved for something new due to the influx of the superhero movie. The superhero movie is basically the same movie every time and people are getting sick of it. So Mad Max comes along and doesn't follow the superhero movie arc and people eat that shit up. Unless there's a noticeable drop in quality, ie Matrix 2, the second iteration of this series will be equally if not more highly praised. Then by the third one people will be sick of it and you'll see a drop in critics and audiences opinions. I think they are slated to do 4 more or something. The fourth will be universally panned and I would be surprised if a fifth even comes out