| 1 person 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.
;) 'cause your dad has hobbies too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
;) 'cause your dad has hobbies too.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.
Cause your dad is clearly awesome.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A guy at work asked me, "Hey, you're an old guy older, have you seen the original ones? How does this one compare?"
And I had to tell him, yes, I'm a fan of the first two (not so much the third one), and that, yeah, this one is every bit as good -- a little slicker and less gritty because the budget was more than $10, but visually far more of a spectacle than Miller would have dreamed was possible in 1980. And with better acting.
(Sorry, purists, but Tom Hardy is every bit as good as Mel Gibson for the role. I don't really care for either one of them off-screen, but on-screen I'm very happy to see either of them as Max Rockatansky.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Topically relevant
For those GMs who can't resist heavy RP of Fury Road-inspired bad guys. Play it all out at the table, including the mouth spray! ;)
An excellent little answer from Tom Hardy in response to an... interesting question.
Also, a few questions later, Mr. Miller states that he "never wrote any of the stories with a chronological connection". Word of God, baby!
The whole conference is worth a listen.
the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.
I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
but... But.. Funky body shield technology!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.
Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
I was under impression that we - people that liked Lynch's Dune - are in minority.
Of course I am very sad we never got the Jodorowsky version... I don't say I'd like it, but I would love to see where he would take it.
The Blu-Ray version will be coming out with B&W version of the movie. I disagree with this since the color is a major thing.
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.
Are either of you an experienced welder and/or automobile mechanic? Someone needs to start a tradition of building parent & offspring soap box racers road war racers.
Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
a lot of people liked syfys Dune.
a lot of people liked syfys Dune.Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.the way Patrick Stewart did in Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.
Loved the David Lynch version - will have to find the syfy version.
As someone that loves David Lynch, Kyle MacLachlan, and Patrick Stewart, I'm not sure why I didn't like that Dune.
|
IMO, the SciFi version was better (and that's the only time in the history of EVER that anyone is going to say *that*), but I have a soft spot for a lot of the classic scenes, like Pol's Gom'Jabbar (sp?) or Sting as Feyd (again, sp?). So many classic actors, and really strong performances, that, IMO, outmatched the sci-fi actors performances, even if the SciFi mini was better in just about every other way.
So many scenes from the Lynch version stick in my head, like 'My name is a killing word.' or 'Cut my son's bonds...' or 'He can face you with my blade in his hand.'
IMO, the SciFi version was better (and that's the only time in the history of EVER that anyone is going to say *that*), but I have a soft spot for a lot of the classic scenes, like Pol's Gom'Jabbar (sp?) or Sting as Feyd (again, sp?). So many classic actors, and really strong performances, that, IMO, outmatched the sci-fi actors performances, even if the SciFi mini was better in just about every other way.
So many scenes from the Lynch version stick in my head, like 'My name is a killing word.' or 'Cut my son's bonds...' or 'He can face you with my blade in his hand.'
The only time? Did you miss the people in the last ten posts saying they preferred the SyFy version?
a lot of people liked syfys Dune.I'm still trying to forget the awful David Lynch rendition. The SyFi channel miniseries was everything the 80s movie should have been and then some.Wow...I thought I was the only person who actually had that opinion.
I think he means that the SyFi version of Dune, specifically, is the only SyFi version of anything he'll admit to liking better than an alternative.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOT ENOUGH CHROME IN DUNE! ENOUGH SAND AND WASTELAND THOUGH! VALHALLA MILDLY APPROVES THE DERAIL!
Now, if only Paul Muad'dib rode past the ruined atomic shield wall to the glorious sounds of finely tuned engines, a dozen thumpers, and the Doof Warrior jamming out atop a Shai-Hulud equipped with three dozen amps.
Folks, point of order, it was the SciFi Channel, not SyFy.
Very different channels.
I wouldn't say that. The staff had different relationships with the company that owned them, that cannot be denied.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just watched the movie, liked it a lot. I didn't care about the story and most of the characters, and to be honest most of the action wasn't all that interesting to me (I have to care about what's going on to be moved into real excitement by an action scene). However, the movie had such style that it was irresistible. The customs, those cars, and all those little details that just add up to create a movie that's different. It was so apparent just how much thought and effort went into this.
I went into the movie expecting Furiosa to be an interesting character and the true lead of the movie given that I knew the next one would be called after her. What I found out is a pretty flat character with an only OK performance behind her - still better than Max who was a non entity, but not the heart of the film. The heart of the film was the setting itself, and my favorite part of it was the war boys ("Witness me!") - and so maybe unsurprisingly, the character I cared about the most was Nux. And that old lady with the seeds. But Nux was played extremely well in my opinion and went through an internal struggle, while always being fun and engaging.
I couldn't figure out, during the movie, what anyone could possibly get worked up about. There were no men vs. women themes, just characters of both genders. In Road Warrior there was also a good showing of both male and female characters, from all ages (something rare in an action movie) and with various occupations.
To be honest, I'm becoming exceptionally jaded of gender activists about my favorite genres. They all get it wrong all the time. They keep exacerbating small things into symbols of inequality and blow everything out of proportion while dragging it kicking and screaming out of context. Yeah, man's rights activists riling up against this movie is stupid. Feminists riling up against Avengers: Age Of Ultron was equally stupid. Just... the genre is doing fine. There is real eagrness in creators and audiance to make sure there's room for women as well as men in the genre, and that's enough. The rest is background noise.
One last thing - nobody else seems to be commenting on the quote right at the end of the movie that is supposedly by "The First History Man" - I assume a fictional character. That quote hints at quite a bit - not only is someone bothering to write a history that seems to be about events in the movie, he is only the first "history man". This seems to imply that some semblance of order is due to be returned in the near future after the movie's conclusion.
I like that. This, coupled with the rest of the optimism at the end of the movie, makes the story about less rough than in Road Warrior, but that kind of change is good. It can become hard to continue to care about a world where none of the stories actually achieve anything of consequence and things just keep on going downhill. If the next movies are about a new beginning for the human race, I'm all aboard for the concept.
The retelling of the tales of the Road Warrior is what has been ongoing since Mad Max 2/The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. In each of them someone voicing over sets the stage for that film's tale. Given what is apparently going to become an impromptu quintilogy (?) following the 'origin story', I hope that you're right about that. It seems that it is though - Max leaves each of the 2nd/3rd/4th films' places better off that when he came into the scene (as it turns out), whether onscreen or not.
I think Max is kind of like V from V for Vendetta. He leaves/dies because he cannot fit into the new world that will come about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone that loves David Lynch, Kyle MacLachlan, and Patrick Stewart, I'm not sure why I didn't like that Dune.
Because it sucked? Because the screenplay was a tortured mess? Because it blatantly misses important themes in the book? All these and more can explain why you may not have liked David Lynch's Dune movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* Hardy as Max was a non-event. The personality tics Mel did naturally Hardy attempts, but they seem forced. Max in Fury Road has zero personality.
At first blush, it does kind of look like that. But with a little more reflection and reading some thoughtful reviews, I think there's much more to him in this movie. At the start, he's pretty much just an animal - fight or flight, possessive about his lifeline (his car). But as the movie progresses, he starts to learn how to interact like a human again until he transforms from animal to warrior to healer. I'm kind of digging that idea.
I think the SciFi version of Dune was better, as a storyteller, than David Lynch's version. But it does suffer a little bit from cheapness and lower production values in some parts - kind of like when you compare the current Doctor Who series with the old ones.
But I would watch the SciFi one again. I've already seen the David Lynch version too many times...
* Hardy as Max was a non-event. The personality tics Mel did naturally Hardy attempts, but they seem forced. Max in Fury Road has zero personality.
At first blush, it does kind of look like that. But with a little more reflection and reading some thoughtful reviews, I think there's much more to him in this movie. At the start, he's pretty much just an animal - fight or flight, possessive about his lifeline (his car). But as the movie progresses, he starts to learn how to interact like a human again until he transforms from animal to warrior to healer. I'm kind of digging that idea.
Watched it again. Stand by my characterisation of Max as a non-character. Wife agreed with me. Still, I'm happy others saw more than perhaps I did. :)
|
|
* Hardy as Max was a non-event. The personality tics Mel did naturally Hardy attempts, but they seem forced. Max in Fury Road has zero personality.
At first blush, it does kind of look like that. But with a little more reflection and reading some thoughtful reviews, I think there's much more to him in this movie. At the start, he's pretty much just an animal - fight or flight, possessive about his lifeline (his car). But as the movie progresses, he starts to learn how to interact like a human again until he transforms from animal to warrior to healer. I'm kind of digging that idea.
Well, the actor did fine with what was there to work with, but there was so little that the bottom line is that Max really wasn't an important part of this movie. Same goes to Furiosa in my opinion, even though she is more of a driving force (getit? getit?) for the plot than Max is. The only character I felt any emotional attachment to was the war boy, Nux.
Nux was the main character. The rest were support cast. ;)
Well, the actor did fine with what was there to work with, but there was so little that the bottom line is that Max really wasn't an important part of this movie.
Weird -- I felt from the very start that Max was unmistakably the main character, and Hardy the star, and that feeling didn't change at all for me after the other characters were introduced.
Well, the actor did fine with what was there to work with, but there was so little that the bottom line is that Max really wasn't an important part of this movie.Weird -- I felt from the very start that Max was unmistakably the main character, and Hardy the star, and that feeling didn't change at all for me after the other characters were introduced.
I felt like the first half of the movie Max was irrelevant and that overall he could have been cut without much detriment to the movie.
Different strokes, man. I was VERY hesitant that someone was trying to replace Gibson, but I thought Hardy's sheer screen presence obviated his need for actual lines. (And, outside of this movie, I'm not at all a fan of his.)
|
Just came back from seeing this with my wife. She was deeply impressed and felt that for once the action heroes spoke to her. I was not as impressed, possibly because my expectations were Citizen Kane level after all the hyping JJ and others have been doing, so there was no way to live up to that.
Good:
* Strong females done wonderfully.
* Nice, nearly flawless action scenes.
* Wonderful visual character designs.
* Guitar guy, of course.
* Photography very well designed and composited, almost Sin City level 'every shot carefully thought out'.
* Felt like a comic book because of the unique character designs and the great shot compositions.
* Member of a very limited club where the protagonist is visibly an amputee. (No, I don't count Luke Skywalker because you can barely tell.)
* Charlize Theron, period.
Bad:
* Did not see Max Rockatansky anywhere in Hardy's performance -- male protagonist could've been anyone, really.
* Nux's turn was way weak and needed more depth.
* The whole premise of being able to take and hold the Citadel just because the main force was away was ludicrous.
* The last fight strayed too much into "casualty of the minute" retreads. There goes another...and another...and another. Yawn.
Overall I give it 4 stars out of 5. A good movie but not earthshaking.
|
|
Just remembered something that bothered me about the movie and which I was wondering about. During several action scenes, and most notably the opening scene of the movie, it felt as if I was watching sped-up footage. As if they were playing the movie faster than it should be.
Anyone else noticed that? Was that some sort of stylistic choice I did not understand?
|
Just remembered something that bothered me about the movie and which I was wondering about. During several action scenes, and most notably the opening scene of the movie, it felt as if I was watching sped-up footage. As if they were playing the movie faster than it should be.
Anyone else noticed that? Was that some sort of stylistic choice I did not understand?
Yes, this was on purpose. It's to disorient the audience the way Max is disoriented, it's sped up because it's the opening crawl, backstory and context. We get it out of the way so we can get to the important reveal: The Green and the real story: Fury Road.
|
|
Yes, this was on purpose. It's to disorient the audience the way Max is disoriented, it's sped up because it's the opening crawl, backstory and context. We get it out of the way so we can get to the important reveal: The Green and the real story: Fury Road.Just remembered something that bothered me about the movie and which I was wondering about. During several action scenes, and most notably the opening scene of the movie, it felt as if I was watching sped-up footage. As if they were playing the movie faster than it should be.
Anyone else noticed that? Was that some sort of stylistic choice I did not understand?
Well, can't say I agree with this. The entire opening sequence felt pretty weak compared to the rest of the movie. I wonder if there was no better way to set the scene up.
EDIT: to clarify, I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, rather I meant to say that I don't like that choice. Sort of prevents me from immersing in the movie because it looks so... unreal.
* The whole premise of being able to take and hold the Citadel just because the main force was away was ludicrous.
I was a bit uneasy when they rode into the Citadel to take it over, and it was guarded by hundreds of children who were bred to be unthinkingly loyal to their father...
"So, like, are they just going to slaughter all those kids so they can take over?"
It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me that the younger War Boys just sort of let them ride in with the corpse of their father and set themselves up as leader. But I guess it was either that or pull an Anakin.