[Closed] Mad Max. is it just me?

I rented it from iTunes when it became available but I failed to finish it, different folk like different stuff and I imagine many folk would think my fav film of last year "under the skin" is a bit pants.

I miss the Valiant Chargers and leather trousers of the original...

I tried to watch it twice and failed both times. Admittedly it was post-pub

Eh? It has loads of CGI in it. Not that I mind that in films as there's some things really can't be done without it.

Did you watch the videos I posted Drac? The first one shows some of the physical stunts they did on set. Things like cars flipping, fireballs and motorcross jumps. Even Tom Hardy as a hood ornament was a real stunt. All stuff that would typically be CG.

There [i]was[/i] obviously a lot of CGI in it though, as the second video shows, but as the third video points out pretty much every modern high budget film uses CGI, even the terribly serious ones with actual plots.

I walked out with a " What just happened? " level of confusion. To be fair though I hadnt seen #1 or #2 so it didnt really work for me.
Too loud, silly plot, just weird with the mothers milk etc

Clearly it was just a bit too avant garde for the hard of thinking. The people who dislike it are probably the type of person who consider Braveheart or Gladiator to be "the best film ever made".

Did you watch the videos I posted Drac? The first one shows some of the physical stunts they did on set. Things like cars flipping, fireballs and motorcross jumps. Even Tom Hardy as a hood ornament was a real stunt. All stuff that would typically be CG.

I watched the first but I've seen photos already too. I agree it's done well but to say there's very little CGI really is wrong.

After this thread I watched one of these on Sky Movies the other day, the one where they're chasing the Brides around a desert.

Rubbish.

I am another who just gave up on it after about 1/2 an hour, it really wasn't going anywhere, made thunderdome look good.

I also don't get the hardy love in, the only decent part he has played was Bronson, everything else he has done his part could have been played by any other generic actor and it would have made no difference to the film.

to say there's very little CGI really is wrong.

Agreed, I think it would be more accurate to say that something more like "there are more practical stunts and less CGI than you would typically see in a big budget movie of this genre". Yeah?

It was total crap imo 😆

Yup I'd say that Graham.

After this thread I watched one of these on Sky Movies the other day, the one where they're chasing the Brides around a desert.

Really? Are you a time traveller?

Don't care about the cgi vs stunts personally, was still a good film and I think for some people a little too deep...

I never said there was very little CGI, I said you'd be surprised how little was CGI. They could have made most of the film using CGI, as most current film-makers would. Instead, George Miller chose to do as much of it with physical stunts as possible, using CGI to enhance the overall look and atmosphere of the film (and filling in where practical stunts would just be too dangerous).
My response was to a comment claiming that the film was 2 hours of CGI, which is a criticism that can be levelled at many current action films. Unfortunately, this film is an example of physical effects done very well and CGI used with restraint.
Therefore, someone who thinks the film is two hours of constant CGI would be surprised how (relatively) little of what they think is CGI is actually CGI, but is actually physical stunt work.
Happy?
😉

Fair enough I took it the wrong way, sorry.

Saw it in the cinema first time around.. was bored silly. Downloaded it and saw it for a second time, with no real expectations of anything really (other than it probably being a bit pointless)... and it had kinda grown on me. I still wouldn't say it's a great film, but it's silly, watchable stuff. Very taupe and orange though.

And I am pretty sure that Tom Hardy chap attended Joey's "Smell The Fart" school of acting. You know, staring into the middle distance with a "who dropped that one" expression.

Mad Max was a good crowdpleaser - it's the type of film which we all used to go and watch in the 80s/90s but has been done poorly since. I think it achieved what it set out to do well.
Definitely not a 'highlight of the year' type movie for me though.

MSP - Member

made thunderdome look good.

Thunderdome is total genius though. Properly cracked.

It was ok entertainment of the "loud CGI blockbuster" variety but I couldn't understand all the fuss really.

Oscar-worthy? Not so sure.

MSP - Member
made thunderdome look good.

Thunderdome is total genius though. Properly cracked.

+1. One of my favourite Pocky-clipse movies.

Clearly it was just a bit too avant garde for the hard of thinking. The people who dislike it are probably the type of person who consider Braveheart or Gladiator to be "the best film ever made".

How rude.
The average age and intellect of the tiny cross scetion of society that is the STW chat department would tend to disagree with you.

Yet you still persue the arguement that the people who dont like something that you do 'must be hard of thinking'? Or could they just have a difference of opinion on what is 'good' cinema , and what isn't.

Yet you still persue the arguement that the people who dont like something that you do 'must be hard of thinking'? Or could they just have a difference of opinion on what is 'good' cinema , and what isn't.

The first one with Mel was so good because it didn't take itself so seriously.
It was camp, overracted and very funny.

I thought the new one was pretty good, but you can't, by definition, make a good sequel from a surprise hit.
The surprise was half of the fun.

Didn't read all of the 2nd page, but what Choppersquad said: it's not really about Max, it's about Imperator Furiosa (?!). You could remove him from the film entirely and not lose anything.

Visually it was great to watch. Storyline, not so much.

In terms of what a 'reboot' of Mad Max could've been in these days of box-office fodder this was an incredible triumph of film-making and entertainment.

A 70 year old film director - threw everything he could at the screen to bring a bold, exciting and visceral update of some classic movies.

If you didn't like it - chances are you didn't like Mad Max the first time around. But this film was so much better than it should've been.

I don't think I would ever convince anyone who didn't like it though.

What threads like this perfectly illustrate is how people confuse their own preferences with good and bad. Mad Max by the large majority of impartial opinion, of its type is a good film.
That doesn't mean everybody is going to like it we have different tastes. But if something has inherent merit it's not "crap" or rubbish it's just that you don't like it.

Exactly Taxi for example I found The Revenant utterly boring, beautifully filmed and Leonardo was pretty good but it was just dull.

The Revenant utterly boring, beautifully filmed and Leonardo was pretty good but it was just dull.

Not seen it but this is pretty much a somethingion of most of the reviews I read or heard.

Lets just admit it, last year was a poor year for mainstream movies.

😆 flippin heck there is some crap being talked on here, I didn't like Fury Road that much but it is a technically fantastic film, that doesn't mean I am somehow flawed as a person or my cat should be ritually slaughtered.

I think Quantum of Solace is underrated and A life less ordinary is a great film, that seems to go against the general zeitgeist*

sleeping with the dictionary again 😉

So Taxi thinks it's good and therefore it's not allowed to be called crap.

Personally I thought it was crap, so by your reckoning I can say it's not allowed to be called good?

Some people liked Titanic, and that won some Oscars as well. Personally it's on my all time crap films list......

Hahaha.

Several of you are just wrong. LOLz

apparently i really meant it

It was total crap imo

They did a great job of sewing her arm back on, you would never know it's been chopped off.

I really enjoyed Mad Max Fury Road, didn't think it was as world shattering as some of the reviews suggested though.

I can understand that sometimes massively critically acclaimed films can leave people cold though - I thought The Revenant was really dull and occasionally unintentionally funny (alternate title: Leo's Bad Day), and was massively disappointed by Zodiac (several hours of the police being miserable over several years because they're getting nowhere).

MrsToast: have you read the zodiac book? It's far better than the film

I didn't mind Zodiac but you're right with your synopsis and you're spot on with The Revenant.

Not read the book, will have to give it a go!

Pigface - Member
A life less ordinary is a great film

Thought it had promise, but as with many many modern films it failed to sustain it's early pace and became a bit rambling. Was bored by the end.

The Reveneant suffered the same fate IMO, although I honestly think some of the camera work and scene setting was as good as I've ever seen. Stunning in the first half in particular.

I enjoyed the Revenant but it did come across as a film deliberately contrived to display Di Caprio's range of facial expressions (Joey Tribiani?).

I thought it was one of the worst films I have ever seen and watching films is pretty much what I do with every spare minute I have, when I am not working or riding. I love films.

I hated this film so much that I honestly started to feel sick and depressed watching it and turned it off. I have never experienced any thing like it, it was very strange.

And the Oscars it won, I was just dumbfounded.

And the Oscars it won, I was just dumbfounded.

It's difficult to argue against some of those Oscars even if you're a film geek. Production Design? Costume Design? What other films even came close last year?

The film won six Academy Awards for Best Film Editing, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Sound Mixing and Best Sound Editing,

Well the first Mad Max and possibly the second rank up there as some of my all time Fav films.

I did enjoy Fury Road, but for me there wasn't enough Max. Hardy was pretty good but the film (for me) focussed too much on other stuff and not enough on Max being pissed off at the world.

fin25 is right - a lot of Mad Max was done with physical stunts, not CGI.

good set of vids...