Mad Max 4: Fury Road

[jenkins]

Well you proved yourself wrong since we're having a conversation. On the topic of the movie, it's been going like this: TUBA packaged his reactions to the movie in a post, I was happy to hear someone with me on this, then modage defended an aspect of the movie, then I said I didn't think Mad Max needs defense at this point, then JB provided defense for the movie, then modage clarified that there's a lot to like in the movie there really is, which is a reassertion of what him and JB are saying, then I brought up the point that our reactions to movies tend to come from what the movie puts inside of us, rather than what's inside the movie, which perspective fans of the arthouse know well, then you asked me why we're talking about this movie that we're not supposed to be talking about or something. That's what it looks like to me.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I absolutely know what you're getting at jenkins. I think you're being generous though; I don't see the substance of what you're saying in TUBA's post. His post didn't offend me of course, it's just so alien to my experience that I felt the need to highlight that contrast.

I agree with this:

to say that there was "nothing more" than action in this film is patently untrue.

Sincerely though TUBA, I'm curious what you thought of the way it ended (SPOILERS) with the matriarchal rebellion/takeover and whatnot. Was that affecting, or did it wash over you?

[jenkins]

Seems there's really the demand that TUBA, him specifically, explain his response to Mad Max. So we'll wait 'til next week on that. I'll assert that the story was flawed from the beginning through the bogus pouring out of water, in which all these people who never ever get water apparently haven't planned and are completely idiotic about how to receive the little bit of water given to them. Puddles on the ground! Outta town. So, no, I wasn't moved by the victory since I wasn't moved by the battle. That's how it works. And I know it drives the Maxheads up the wall. Folding my cards on this conversation.

[Gold Trumpet]

I definitely think this movie could be analyzed a lot more than what it is. I'm happy with the huge enthusiasm because I'm fully on board too, but I also thinking a lot of adults are rediscovering what it means to have a fully youthful enthusiasm for a movie. Blockbusters directly want to excite viewers and "wow" them in ways many adults can no longer get excited about - especially those who have already seen a lot of movies. But I'm noticing for a lot of people, Mad Max is a return to a lost basic enjoyment for a movie.

It's great but I can definitely understand a lot of people not being that impressed. When we analyze films, we selectively put certain qualities over others. Many things in this film are well done, but many things in the film are cliche and fit into generalizations of a lot of action films today. Since Mad Max wants to go along with those films and (in many ways) out bravado them, there is opportunity for many people not disposed to liking these movies on any subjective level to seeing them alongside every other film made like it.

[03]

guys guys i think we're getting distracted from the main point here which is that tubas review was totally stupid and wrong.

[Drenk]

Here, I'll go one step further. Fury Road is, yes, a fantastic piece of action filmmaking – breathless, beautiful, and bold – but it's also something else. Through its sheer, spectacular drive, it puts me in the same kind of reverie that slow cinema does. One of the great pleasures of watching the static long-take aesthetic – in a film like, say, Tsai Ming-Liang's What Time Is It There? or Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Distant – is the way it focuses our attention on small details that gain monumental importance: a pair of wet socks on a radiator, or an otherwise irrelevant small fish swimming around in an aquarium. I would argue that for all the sublime beauty of the non-stop action in Fury Road, it possesses a similar kind of refinement.

In movies like these, the absence of conventional dramatic development makes us lock in on the smallest of gestures and incidents – not out of poverty, mind you, but because great filmmakers teach us to see all over again. Their work transforms us, changes our inner rhythms and points us in all sorts of directions we may never have noticed. And yes, a film by George Miller at his best does that same thing. Even if, instead of long takes of people staring off into space, he's giving us fast cuts of trucks and motorcycles flying through the air.

http://ebiri.blogspot.fr/2015/06/this-is-our-furiosa-mad-max-and-moments.html

[Garam]

Fwiw I agree with TUBA. Really big thrill that failed to leave any impression on me once it was over. I don't even think that's such a bad thing, just that it would never become a favourite. Still looking forward to seeing it again.

[max from fearless]

No one's review is totally stupid or totally wrong. (i feel your passion, but c'mon) The film has some remarkable filmmaking in it. The last 15 minutes blew me away: the audacity of the camera, the effects and the physical action, combined with the high stakes and the stripped down action, not to mention the incredible small and telling details in production design and wardrobe, which add to the stripped down gestures and nuances in the performances (especially Theron's awesome turn (it all feels like an epic silent movie) that make this cinematic universe come alive in a brutal, manic, bonkers fashion. That being said, although the film transported me, it didn't stay with me or move me in the way that "The Road Warrior" or "Mad Max" do/did, and I was left with very little but the spectacular filmmaking and technique. Which doesn't mean I think the film is bad (fuck bad or good in this case, I think we can all agree that some remarkable things take place in this movie, right?) it just means it didn't tap into the deep reservoir in myself, which moves me or makes me think about a movie, the next day or week, in terms of it's story or character or it's performances, all that remained was the thrill, which feels slightly hollow without these things ---- FOR ME. Which is why I popped Road Warrior on, and found it slightly more satisfying. But this is still the most eye-popping, bonkers, beautiful bit of filmmaking I've seen this year. I don't know if that makes sense? I felt the same way about "The Tree of Life" the filmmaking and the ambition touched me and inspired me, but all the things that the filmmaking was in service of, didn't quite reach me. Nonetheless, there are great things to be discussed when talking about Fury Road. The post-production sounds bonkers. We could talk about the colour correction all day. The performances (Charlize owns this) The faces of the characters. The cars. The propulsion of the thing. The opening sequence. 2D and 3D. (I've only seen it in 2D) How cliches that I'd normally scream about in other films, are fine here, because of the sheer bonkers momentum and madness of this thing. How it's the first tent-pole in a long long time that feels totally idiosyncratic and personal and very very MAD. Ultimately, I don't think there's any right or wrong or good or bad, here, with this particular film, the fact that it's got everyone talking, excited and debating is absolutely beautiful and I wanna hear as many diverse opinions as possible. It's funny it feels like it's a thin film, but there's a lot of depth there, I dunno, I've only seen the mad bastard once and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.....Contradictory musings but all true, basically what Garam said but in extended cut, with loads of scenes we don't need and a long ass director's commentary....

[modage]

Just to clarify since this seems to have been lost in translation. I don't care if the film wasn't for you or it didn't move you or you didn't love it like we love it but to say it was only action and nothing more is a misreading of the film and therefore not a valid criticism to me. Everything in the film has a thematic/emotional underpinning and a logical/character-based reason for existing, which is why it's 2 hours of mayhem that we actually do give a shit about unlike 99% of films that attempt this feat and just end up boring us to death.

to say that there was "nothing more" than action in this film is patently untrue.

[jenkins]

which is why it's 2 hours of mayhem that we actually do give a shit about unlike 99% of films that attempt this feat and just end up boring us to death.

hmmm. are you being hilarious? you see in the end there how you start speaking for other people, assuming everyone experiences the movie the same way you do? all of everything you love in the movie being in the movie, totally perfect, so perfect send a copy of the script to the president, and it still doesn't work such that it moves everyone in the same way

[Jeremy Blackman]

Modage is not dumb, I think it's clear the "we" he's talking about is people who liked the movie.

We can have a civil conversation about whether this movie has substance. I think everyone can acknowledge, as a factual matter, that it at least tries. (Which is what modage is getting at.) It has character content, in that words are spoken in this movie by characters, and actions are taken by those characters, to try to develop them. The movie also does worldbuilding to try to make us care what happens to the society and the rest of the people.

All of that is actual content in addition to the "simple action." It worked for some of us. For others, it worked so poorly as to be nonexistent in their memories.

Suffice it to say, it worked for me. I did not expect Mad Max to be so emotionally powerful and genuinely inspiring at the end, even 2/3 through it. To frame this as a bad metaphor: the subtexts were apparently seeding my brain throughout, only to bloom when victory arrived. I definitely did not expect to cry at the end of this movie, but it happened, and it happened strong. I think it was the water gushing from those pipes.

[jenkins]

goddamnit. the only thing uncivil from my perspective is the absolute disbelief at other people not clicking with this movie. the point of the conversation continues to be not that modage is dumb (why was that mentioned?), not that jb is dumb (mentioning), but the point seems to be that tuba's review was dumb. apparently tuba is a fucking idiot and mad max was awesome, eat it losers. what. ever. i think gold trumpet has replied the best, and i do think derek was right when he reminded me that people have a right to love this movie. i just think it's tacky right now to love it by throwing fire on why tuba didn't like the movie, the same as it's tacky for me to throw fire on people liking this movie (which i havne't). you guys can like it, let us not like it, art doesn't have to be a thing we settle on paper because art can be settled by the person and the art. this is all human shit

[Jeremy Blackman]

goddamnit. the only thing uncivil from my perspective is the absolute disbelief at other people not clicking with this movie.

I see. When I described TUBA's reaction as being alien to my own, that is literally all I meant. That it's crazy that two people can have such different reactions to a movie. My post was made with a genuine sense of wonder and confusion, not indignance (as you say, this movie will be just fine) and certainly not condemnation.

Frankly I assume we're at a point where we can take at face value that multiple reactions to a movie are valid. No explanation required.

[03]

i forgot who to quote this response to but i was totally joking in my post, i felt that was fairly obvious

[jenkins]

you'd like to clarify there's humor in what brought us to this line, for some reason you wanna clarify that

apparently tuba is a fucking idiot and mad max was awesome, eat it losers. what. ever.