Mad Max: Fury Road


Movies

151 to 200 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Personally decide a movie is 'probably' outrageous - yes.

Deride a movie as guaranteed to be carrying a 'feminist' message - no.

His claim from the initial article: But let us be clear. This is the vehicle by which they are guaranteed to force a lecture on feminism down your throat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Found the MRA.

I do hope you're referring to me. After having taken apart your examples for the deception that they are, being labelled such by you would be a badge of honor, as it shows that I'm not an extremist in your direction.

After I disagreed with his silly assessment of Mad Max being worthwhile and not a feminist movie, I have no doubt that Aaron Clarey would consider me a feminist, as I'm not an extremist in HIS direction, either. I'd be proud of it from him, too.

Guess that places me in the middle. Hmm.... I think there's a word for us. Starts with an E, not an F or an M.

---

Albatoonoe wrote:
Dude, you were missing my point. All feminism wants is for women to be treated on equal levels as men. When a movie does that, we consider it feminist. THAT'S ALL.

Indeed. There's even a word for it, but it isn't 'feminist'. Obviously our definitions of feminism differ, as previous posts should attest.

As for the more vocal feminist's view on men, feel free to look at the link Archmagi1 posted.

---

TheJeff wrote:
Without even looking at his data, because I've looked into this before,

And here I thought Clarey was silly for slamming on the movie without having watched it. Now you're slamming on his (so-called) data without even looking at it.

I think another poster summed it up well: "I'm so damn outraged by this thing that I've not even bothered to watch myself before getting outraged about."

TheJeff wrote:
Perhaps he meant they don't pay much federal income tax

If you read it, you know he didn't segregate and just listed it all as 'income tax'. Of course, there are other taxes, and it's entirely possible that the chart just shows Federal level and not state + local, but we don't know, because of the picking-and-choosing he used to select the examples. Maybe he's intellectually honest about it, or maybe he just cherry-picked the parts that supported his argument.

Of course, all this is immaterial, and a nice little distraction besides, as the entire rant is to break down the silly notion that "tax cuts benefit only the rich." He shows how the tax cuts improved the situation for the poor.

TheJeff wrote:
Being poor is tough. Being a Lucky Ducky who doesn't have to pay income tax doesn't make up for it.

Don't forget this part: "Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes."

That is another part he addresses. The complaints that the rich "don't pay enough" by the people who pay the least.

--- --- --- --- ---

EDIT (Forgot this portion earlier): If nothing else, setting aside the awesome video work, writing, and characterization, this movie is pretty freaking amazing for the simple fact that it's acting like a giant mirror where everyone is seeing what they want from another perspective, pointing it out, and then getting into discussions with people who see it from a completely different angle.
Can't wait for the sequel.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Without even looking at his data, because I've looked into this before,

And here I thought Clarey was silly for slamming on the movie without having watched it. Now you're slamming on his (so-called) data without even looking at it.

I think another poster summed it up well: "I'm so damn outraged by this thing that I've not even bothered to watch myself before getting outraged about."

I went back and read it again, since you were so polite about it. Yeah, he said basically what I'd though. Pulled a couple basic tax charts and misread them. The charts show income tax (almost certainly just federal), which is fair in the context of talking about the tax cuts, but gets blurred into all taxes in his rant, which is par for the course. I didn't need to read it because everyone who makes that "poor people are parasites because they pay no taxes" does exactly the same thing.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Perhaps he meant they don't pay much federal income tax

If you read it, you know he didn't segregate and just listed it all as 'income tax'. Of course, there are other taxes, and it's entirely possible that the chart just shows Federal level and not state + local, but we don't know, because of the picking-and-choosing he used to select the examples. Maybe he's intellectually honest about it, or maybe he just cherry-picked the parts that supported his argument.

Of course, all this is immaterial, and a nice little distraction besides, as the entire rant is to break down the silly notion that "tax cuts benefit only the rich." He shows how the tax cuts improved the situation for the poor.

Not really. He showed some tables from another source and ignored the details. Showing that the change in tax rate was greater the higher your income, which wasn't really his point, though technically he was correct. The poorest got a small tax cut. Which isn't quite the same as "improved the situation for the poor". And also ignores the deficits and service cuts spawned from those tax cuts, which were showing even back in 2006.

But then he goes off on the actual attack on the poor, which isn't immaterial and only tangentially related to showing how tax cuts helped them.
CC wrote:
Secondly, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of your greedy scum bucket parasites known as "the poor" who think you have it so rough when in reality, you don't pay a freaking dime for any government service if you're in the bottom 60% of income earners. Free roads, free schools, free health care, free defense. Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes.

And that part is just blatantly wrong. He's not limiting that to federal income tax but "don't pay a freaking dime". (BTW, how do the bottom 60% both get a tax cut and "not pay a freaking dime".) Ignoring of course all the non-income taxes they do pay.

Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
Being poor is tough. Being a Lucky Ducky who doesn't have to pay income tax doesn't make up for it.

Don't forget this part: "Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes."

That is another part he addresses. The complaints that the rich "don't pay enough" by the people who pay the least.

Well yeah, because that's where the money is. Should we take more from those who are swimming in piles of cash or from the Lucky Duckies who don't owe any income tax because they're so broke they're already only getting by on food stamps?

The audacity of the poor working single mother demanding the rich stock broker in his limo snorting coke through hundred dollar bills pay a couple percent more in taxes that won't affect his lifestyle in the slightest. If it's so easy to be poor, since you don't have to pay taxes, maybe some of the rich wouldn't mind swapping places?


Arturius Fischer says he doesn't say X.

Quotes him saying things that mean X.

Confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meh, who cares about any "agenda" or whatever. Miller's film is excellent entertainment with comparatively minimal CGI special effects. I enjoyed the (censored) out of it. A full brace of sharpened filet knives up! ;)

I'm betting at least 2 excellent memes arise from this film. :D


9 people marked this as a favorite.

WHAT A LOVELY FILM!


So Pathfinder version of Doof Wagon?

Mandolin bard with drummers in the back. Pulled by horses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I went and saw it with my wife. We both enjoyed the hell out of it, although she did hide her face a few times during more cringeworthy moments.

My only real issues were the moment that pretty much screamed, 'By the way, the movie can be watched in 3D!' and trying to work out where the hell Max keeps getting the same, custom made car before destroying it.

The plot served it's purpose for the narrative, and kept things moving forwards in the right direction. Neither Furiosa nor Max ended up being better than the other. Both make mistakes that the other saves them from, and it's when they work together that they're at there best. Both have different strengths and skills.

I like the Brides. They're normal woman, chosen and stolen from across the land because they've obviously been affected less by the nuclear fallout than others, and therefore have the best chance of not being deformed, cancerous monsters. The fact they're pretty, in a movie where most of the characters aren't, even makes a narrative sense.

And as normal women who don't especially like being kept as breeding stock, they escape using the resources available and continue to do so, taking part when they can. They show a fair bit of courage and intelligence. And they all have something of a personality, although none receives enough screen time to make a huge impression. They're pro-active in there own salvation, within there own limits, which makes this a better movie than most.

Immortan Joe makes a nice villain. He does some horrible things (thankfully in the background) but he actually has a semi-decent reason for them, and seems to legitimately care for his sons. He doesn't fall in to comic book villainy, but feels like he could be a real person pushed to extremes by the brutality of the situation.

All told, the MRA's response probably makes perfect sense to them, but then, lots of things make sense to them that don't to other folks. For the rest of the world it's a solid action movie with a decent plot, good characters and special effects that will, likely, hold up in twenty years time thanks to the limited use of CGI.

Shiny.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IT WAS GLORIOUS.

Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, GO SEE IT.

@ Arturius Fischer - you really just quoted a guy calling poor people "greedy scum bucket parasites" and then tried to defend what he "really" meant.

Wow.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Not really. He showed some tables from another source and ignored the details. Showing that the change in tax rate was greater the higher your income, which wasn't really his point, though technically he was correct. The poorest got a small tax cut. Which isn't quite the same as "improved the situation for the poor". And also ignores the deficits and service cuts spawned from those tax cuts, which were showing even back in 2006.

Yes the poor got a small tax cut. However this was offset by the fact that certain credits expired. My tax refund is about half of what it used to be. (Technically, I'm working poor) The poor also spend a far greater percentage of their income on basic survival needs, rent, utiliies, food, etc. They also pay rent which goes towards local property taxes. They also pay a greater percentage of their income on sales taxes.

Like many others Cleary ignores the more subtle realities that don't fit his myopic thesis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:

So Pathfinder version of Doof Wagon?

Mandolin bard with drummers in the back. Pulled by horses.

Or pulled by bulettes. Bulettes would be more metal.

Or a giant sphere hamster wheel in the center, filled with monk kobolds all running at top speed.


Maybe we could take the politics derail to another thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nigel Tufnel, Guitar Wizard wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

So Pathfinder version of Doof Wagon?

Mandolin bard with drummers in the back. Pulled by horses.

Or pulled by bulettes. Bulettes would be more metal.

Or a giant sphere hamster wheel in the center, filled with monk kobolds all running at top speed.

A variant annihilator robot, with all of its weapons swapped for sonic equivalents.


TheJeff wrote:
I didn't need to read it because everyone who makes that "poor people are parasites because they pay no taxes" does exactly the same thing.

It's like, you go through all this effort and prove your point, showing that he glossed over things as we both expected, and then jumped right back into the whole 'I don't need to see it for myself' routine. And ignored the bit about which ones he called parasites.

TheJeff wrote:
The poorest got a small tax cut. Which isn't quite the same as "improved the situation for the poor".

Tax money goes toward institutions that benefit them. Rich people were being taxed at a higher percent while the poor were taxed at a lower percent. Through percentages, this is a better situation for the poor. For raw numbers, this is a better situation for the poor.

TheJeff wrote:
And that part is just blatantly wrong. He's not limiting that to federal income tax but "don't pay a freaking dime". (BTW, how do the bottom 60% both get a tax cut and "not pay a freaking dime".)

Yep. As expected, cherry-picked examples.

(On his part, not yours, in case you thought I was accusing you of something.)

TheJeff wrote:
Well yeah, because that's where the money is. Should we take more from those who are swimming in piles of cash or from the Lucky Duckies who don't owe any income tax because they're so broke they're already only getting by on food stamps?

Yeah, he goes into the 'wealth redistribution' bit at the end. The whole point is the shameful nature of people saying "Tax those other people more!" when they themselves have been getting taxed less and less. It's even worse that certain people want to take money from group A and distribute it to group B, when those people are Group B.

TheJeff wrote:
The audacity of the poor working single mother demanding the rich stock broker in his limo snorting coke through hundred dollar bills pay a couple percent more in taxes that won't affect his lifestyle in the slightest. If it's so easy to be poor, since you don't have to pay taxes, maybe some of the rich wouldn't mind swapping places?

I dunno, go ask them. Or build an elaborate, extremely biased strawman and tear it down instead.

---

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Arturius Fischer says he doesn't say X.

Quotes him saying things that mean X.

Confusion.

Arty quotes person A accusing B of saying X.

Arty shows that person B did not say X.
BigNorseWolf comes in, misses it, and says "saying things that mean X", then acts confused.

---

Zhangar wrote:

@ Arturius Fischer - you really just quoted a guy calling poor people "greedy scum bucket parasites" and then tried to defend what he "really" meant.

Wow.

And what he really said, which apparently was skipped over when random accusers failed critical reading. Even with 5+ examples, only one has been argued successfully, the rest ignored.

Wow.
The only person who brought up a direct false statement by the guy was TheJeff. And it was hillarious.

---

Turin the Mad wrote:
Meh, who cares about any "agenda" or whatever. Miller's film is excellent entertainment with comparatively minimal CGI special effects. I enjoyed the (censored) out of it. A full brace of sharpened filet knives up! ;)

YESSSSSSSS.

I'm still upset at the whole "I'm in a massive sandstorm without goggles and am doing fine!" part. I've been in much weaker ones than the 'hurricane of sandy death', and I guarantee you're going to be suffering if you try that.
Still, that's about the only thing that stands out as being a WTF moment. Everything else in the film is downright amazing, and it's good to see a movie like this get such wide acclaim.


Arturius Fischer wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
I didn't need to read it because everyone who makes that "poor people are parasites because they pay no taxes" does exactly the same thing.

It's like, you go through all this effort and prove your point, showing that he glossed over things as we both expected, and then jumped right back into the whole 'I don't need to see it for myself' routine. And ignored the bit about which ones he called parasites.

TheJeff wrote:
The poorest got a small tax cut. Which isn't quite the same as "improved the situation for the poor".

Tax money goes toward institutions that benefit them. Rich people were being taxed at a higher percent while the poor were taxed at a lower percent. Through percentages, this is a better situation for the poor. For raw numbers, this is a better situation for the poor.

TheJeff wrote:
And that part is just blatantly wrong. He's not limiting that to federal income tax but "don't pay a freaking dime". (BTW, how do the bottom 60% both get a tax cut and "not pay a freaking dime".)

Yep. As expected, cherry-picked examples.

(On his part, not yours, in case you thought I was accusing you of something.)

TheJeff wrote:
Well yeah, because that's where the money is. Should we take more from those who are swimming in piles of cash or from the Lucky Duckies who don't owe any income tax because they're so broke they're already only getting by on food stamps?

Yeah, he goes into the 'wealth redistribution' bit at the end. The whole point is the shameful nature of people saying "Tax those other people more!" when they themselves have been getting taxed less and less. It's even worse that certain people want to take money from group A and distribute it to group B, when those people are Group B.

TheJeff wrote:
The audacity of the poor working single mother demanding the rich stock broker in his limo snorting coke through hundred dollar bills pay a couple percent more in taxes that won't affect his
...

Dropping the economic derail, so that we can at least get back to the feminist/MRA derail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really loved Tom Hardy's performance among all the other things.

He really acts with his body movement. It was bestial, a man who had deranged to the point of acting on animalistic impulses. In the early scenes, especially with the mask on, he moved and sat like a wounded animal.


JonGarrett wrote:


I like the Brides. They're normal woman, chosen and stolen from across the land because they've obviously been affected less by the nuclear fallout than others, and therefore have the best chance of not being deformed, cancerous monsters. The fact they're pretty, in a movie where most of the characters aren't, even makes a narrative sense.

And as normal women who don't especially like being kept as breeding stock, they escape using the resources available and continue to do so, taking part when they can. They show a fair bit of courage and intelligence. And they all have something of a personality, although none receives enough screen time to make a huge impression. They're pro-active in their own salvation, within there own limits, which makes this a better movie than most.

For Missus Turin the Brides stuck with her more than the rest of the film, although she enjoyed it almost as much as I did.

"I can totally see one of them wanting to head back once she realizes what being away from Joe actually means. Back there they have fresh water, food and comfortable shelter guaranteed. Out here in this dust-blasted Hellscape, they are probably all going to die horribly. She would rather deal with the known, bad as it is, than die in the unknown."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:

So Pathfinder version of Doof Wagon?

Mandolin bard with drummers in the back. Pulled by horses.

You're not thinking big enough.

He's got to be riding one of these.

@thejeff: not sure why you're bothering to argue with someone who identifies with MRA's. There's really not point. It took me a couple posts to remember that Arturius has taken some exceptionally sexist stances in previous threads.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

AS MUCH AS I ENJOYED THE REVIEW THAT WAS DONE IN ALL CAPS, THE REVIEW DONE BY A 70 YEAR OLD WOMAN MAY NOW BE MY FAVORITE REVIEW.


NICE.


Tied. ;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I was timelining the car and the shotgun and stuff too, before I ran into a comment that makes a lot of sense. The Road Warrior, Beyond Thunderdome, and Fury Road all have a central element- Max comes into the middle of a situation that is developing, involves himself in it, it is resolved, and he moves on. One of the characters from each film acts as the narrative focus - or the narrator - for the story, every time.

What if it's literally a story?

What if Mad Max is legendary? He's an archetypical folk hero. Each of our narrators- the Feral Kid, Furiosa- they're telling his story, what they saw of him, who he was. He has the same car because, well, that's Max's car. He rode in on it, right? He has the same outfit because "that's his jacket". Superman has his cape and his symbol. Max's symbols are made icons by the people of the Wasteland. The movies aren't a timeline, they're legends. Stuff about this guy, the Road Warrior, who is coded as one thing and becomes hope through his actions, no matter how self-serving they seem at the time- because redemption has a way of finding Max, and people want to believe.


Ragnarok Rose wrote:

I was timelining the car and the shotgun and stuff too, before I ran into a comment that makes a lot of sense. The Road Warrior, Beyond Thunderdome, and Fury Road all have a central element- Max comes into the middle of a situation that is developing, involves himself in it, it is resolved, and he moves on. One of the characters from each film acts as the narrative focus - or the narrator - for the story, every time.

What if it's literally a story?

What if Mad Max is legendary? He's an archetypical folk hero. Each of our narrators- the Feral Kid, Furiosa- they're telling his story, what they saw of him, who he was. He has the same car because, well, that's Max's car. He rode in on it, right? He has the same outfit because "that's his jacket". Superman has his cape and his symbol. Max's symbols are made icons by the people of the Wasteland. The movies aren't a timeline, they're legends. Stuff about this guy, the Road Warrior, who is coded as one thing and becomes hope through his actions, no matter how self-serving they seem at the time- because redemption has a way of finding Max, and people want to believe.

I have heard this theory before...which I think Fury Road did break in a way...at the end of Road Warrior and Thunderdome he sacrificed everything for those who he was helping...which he did not do in Fury Road.

Also RW and Thunderdome ends with the narrator ( the feral kid and the woman) telling the story...that is not how Fury Road ended.

So I don't think Fury Road fits in with the theory.


John Kretzer wrote:

I have heard this theory before...which I think Fury Road did break in a way...at the end of Road Warrior and Thunderdome he sacrificed everything for those who he was helping...which he did not do in Fury Road.

Also RW and Thunderdome ends with the narrator ( the feral kid and the woman) telling the story...that is not how Fury Road ended.

So I don't think Fury Road fits in with the theory.

I think he does.

Spoiler:
All Max wants is the road. When that's given to him, though- the bike, fully supplied, anywhere he wants to go- he gives it up for hope, for Furiosa's redemption, for various reasons. He would willingly go back into hell for them. The blood transfusion and all that... I think it fits.

Your second point is valid, though I still like the idea. Mad Max's name whispered from the edge of a world who's half life expired, and at the heart of the new world that was born...

I think I might just be a sucker for pictorial legends, though. :L


2 people marked this as a favorite.

An awesome gallery of the vehicles of Fury Road - complete with lore snippets


Yea I saw a big thread about how Max is a part of the Furiosa Cycle and how he came in and did significant things and then wandered away.

The comic tie-in has a 'Word Burger' who is tattooed with words tell the legend of Immortan Joe and Nux.


I watched Mad Max Fury Road... AND IT'S F&@#ING AWESOME!!!

GO WATCH IT!!!

WITNESS!!!


Has there been single bad word said about this movie in this thread?
This is the Internet; isn't this unprecedented?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping to see at at Alamo Drafthouse on Monday, if they'll let in Cora the Conqueror. Yeah, it says "no children under 6," but she just hit 7 months, so it should be OK, right?


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:

Has there been single bad word said about this movie in this thread?

This is the Internet; isn't this unprecedented?

Oh, there were, but we promptly ignored them. This is the Internet after all.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm hoping to see at at Alamo Drafthouse on Monday, if they'll let in Cora the Conqueror. Yeah, it says "no children under 6," but she just hit 7 months, so it should be OK, right?

Not usually. I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.


Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.

Thanks for the advice! Manager said earliest show on Tuesdays ONLY - no exceptions. Good to know!

(I'd dearly love to see Mad Max at the Alamo, but Mrs Gersen wants to see it, too.)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.

Thanks for the advice! Manager said earliest show on Tuesdays ONLY - no exceptions. Good to know!

(I'd dearly love to see Mad Max at the Alamo, but Mrs Gersen wants to see it, too.)

Well, at the Austin location on the 25th (this coming Tuesday) the earliest showing on their calendar is Fury Road. ;)

Sovereign Court

WITNESS THE PLOT OF FURY ROAD:

THE ENTIRE PLOT:

I KID BECAUSE I LOVE.

I AM AWAITED IN VALHALLAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:

WITNESS THE PLOT OF FURY ROAD:

** spoiler omitted **

I KID BECAUSE I LOVE.

I AM AWAITED IN VALHALLAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

MEDIOCRE! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'd call ahead and talk to a manager first before booking your ticket. The Alamo is pretty firm on that policy. Having said that, they sometimes have specific showtimes for films where they don't completely darken the theatre and tone the sound down a bit specifically for the parents bringing little 'uns.

Thanks for the advice! Manager said earliest show on Tuesdays ONLY - no exceptions. Good to know!

(I'd dearly love to see Mad Max at the Alamo, but Mrs Gersen wants to see it, too.)

Is there anyone who can take care of your child for a few hours? Taking young children to theater is risky... It often ends with neither the parents nor the children having fun (much less the other patrons)...

I speak this as someone who often takes a bunch of younglings out (tutns out that being the only uncle who is single and with lits of free time makes you one of the parents' favorite baby-sitters).

I don't mean to discourage, I know how difficult it can be to go out when you have a kid, but if possible it's best to find someone nice and trustworthy to look after the children while you go out with the misses for an evening. :)

Eithet way, do find a way to watch the movie! I'm sure you'll enjoy it!


Gersen Jr. is still too small to leave with someone else. Luckily, she'll most likely fall asleep as soon as they turn the lights down. We'll also get there early and grab an end seat near the door, so if she starts fussing at all, Mrs Gersen (who kind of wants to see the movie but doesn't care if she misses parts) can take her outside immediately.

As a rule, I value the other patrons' movie experience as much as I do my own.

That said, we'll be seeing it at a big theatre where teenagers and their cell phones already ruin the movie for everyone, so a baby won't even show up on the radar. Not ideal, but at least I'll still get to see it on the big screen. The Alamo, as much as I love it and wanted to see this movie there, will just have to wait.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Gersen Jr. is still too small to leave with someone else. Luckily, she'll most likely fall asleep as soon as they turn the lights down. We'll also get there early and grab an end seat near the door, so if she starts fussing at all, Mrs Gersen (who kind of wants to see the movie but doesn't care if she misses parts) can take her outside immediately.

As a rule, I value the other patrons' movie experience as much as I do my own.

That said, we'll be seeing it at a big theatre where teenagers and their cell phones already ruin the movie for everyone, so a baby won't even show up on the radar. Not ideal, but at least I'll still get to see it on the big screen. The Alamo, as much as I love it and wanted to see this movie there, will just have to wait.

The main reason for Alamo's policy is that they sell booze to their patrons.


Turin the Mad wrote:
The main reason for Alamo's policy is that they sell booze to their patrons.

Yeah, we're not going to feed that to a 7-month-old!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
The main reason for Alamo's policy is that they sell booze to their patrons.
Yeah, we're not going to feed that to a 7-month-old!

Not until you are 21 months old! That's the law.

Also, LEGO Fury Road:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lego-will/sets/72157649385515455


Not sure if this Starplex chain is in your neck of the woods, Kirth. They have cheaper-than-normal admission prices and $1 hot dogs.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just got back from Cinemark. Thunder Road actually lived up to the hype, and then some. Tom Hardy was instantly recognizable as Mad Max, and was every bit as good as Gibson was. Charlize Theron was great. That was one bad-ass vehicular action film.

Baby Gersen slept through most of it, woke up for the final action sequence, and instead of screaming in fear amidst the explosions and spring-pole guys and killing, she giggled and cheered! Sadly, Mrs Gersen had to take her out because her enthusiasm for the mayhem got louder than the electric guitar guy. She caught the end, though, and we all came home feeling like we got our money's worth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Just got back from Cinemark. Fury Road actually lived up to the hype, and then some. Tom Hardy was instantly recognizable as Mad Max, and was every bit as good as Gibson was. Charlize Theron was great. That was one bad-ass vehicular action film.

Baby Gersen slept through most of it, woke up for the final action sequence, and instead of screaming in fear amidst the explosions and spring-pole guys and killing, she giggled and cheered! Sadly, Mrs Gersen had to take her out because her enthusiasm for the mayhem got louder than the electric guitar guy. She caught the end, though, and we all came home feeling like we got our money's worth.

*Laughing* Awesome that Cora the Conqueror was cheering for the mayhem. :) Glad that you three enjoyed the film!


Oh, and post-time edit to my post: Fury Road, not Thunder Road (the latter is an awesome Robert Mitchum flick from the '50s that also included one seriously bad-ass car chase).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mad Max Fury Road. Moar lyk dis please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Oh, and post-time edit to my post: Fury Road, not Thunder Road (the latter is an awesome Robert Mitchum flick from the '50s that also included one seriously bad-ass car chase).

The title song, sung by Mitchum, is pretty badass in its own right.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Just got back from Cinemark. Thunder Road actually lived up to the hype, and then some.

Bruce Springsteen got a movie out and I missed it?! My Jersey-Fu is weak!


LazarX wrote:
Bruce Springsteen got a movie out and I missed it?! My Jersey-Fu is weak!

Hell, Little Steven from the E Street Band has his own series (Lillyhammer). Springsteen has a cameo in the Season 3 finale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
I SAW THIS MOVIE AND I'M HERE TO SAY IT IS MOST APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS THIS MOVIE EXCLUSIVELY IN CAPS LOCK.

That's an exceptionally accurate, spot-on review.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Took my father to watch it (he had been lobbying my mother to go, but she wouldn't have it). That'd be my 3rd watch.

I'm seeing chrome everywhere now.

Also, I found out my dad is extremely well versed in Mad Max lore for some reason.

151 to 200 of 272 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Mad Max: Fury Road All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.