MovieChat Forums > Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Discussion > Not half as good as its hype

Not half as good as its hype


Hopefully the dust has settled on this one, and people see clearly it's NOT such a masterpiece of filmmaking as the hype in 2015.

What bothers me the most about this, other than its unjustified hype, is the wasted opportunity to be a true classic for the ages (like other mad max movies have been): the action was kinda bland and repetitive (one big escape, going back and forth in the desert...not very interesting, nor new), and the main character (Max) and its motivations were sketchy at best.

It centered on the new main character, Furiosa, who is not that interesting to begin with, they gave her an uninteresting task, and didn't manage to create any interesting dynamic between her, Max, or the bad guys. The only connection in the story is between her and the women-load, but other than gender solidarity, I don't know really why such a connection is in this movie.

It's a glorified B movie that never aimed to be much more than a vehicle to showcase some character design and car ideas (doof warrior), and it's a pity because, with a decent screenwriter, it could have been a classic.

reply

She also will bring death to the people she intended to save. Immortan Joe was reserving water, farming, and providing. I'm sure the mass of "saved" people will die as soon as Furiosa attempts the same failed actions of the women she attempted to bring back.

reply

Sorry slaphappy ...have seen it once per year since it's release and still love it today.....

reply

I still love and watch all the time a bunch of other movies that I know are not that great.
Watchability, rewatchability, love, have nothing to do with being good. This movie is mediocre.

reply

You are in the minority Slappy...

reply

Even if that was true (which is not)...so what?
The "majority" makes your claims legitimate? Since when?

reply

Not that it really matters but the majority of critics and moviegoers recognize the brilliance of Fury Road so it is true, you are in the minority. But we can't all like the same things.

reply

Fury Road is rightfully hailed as a masterpiece. Not everyone's going to love it, and I'm sure every great film has its detractors, but this is certainly a case where the majority of critics and fans are in agreement.

Personally, I was in awe of the film when I watched it, and when it ended I was almost in shock from how great it was, especially because when the point in the film came where they turned around to go back I was like-- no way can they pull this off. Had the film ended at that moment it would already have been great, but it actually got even better from then on. I simply couldn't believe what I'd seen.

reply

"Personally, I was in awe of the film when I watched it, and when it ended I was almost in shock from how great it was"

That is exactly how I felt. And I had pretty big expectations from it, I had been waiting for Fury Road for years and when I finally saw it in the theater it actually surpassed all of my expectations and that does not happen often. It really is a masterpiece. I just wish the sequel would happen.

reply

Yes the majority makes my claims legit....sorry....

reply

Wouldn’t be so sure. If everyone loved it so, we’d have seen a new furiosa movie every year since

reply

Nope....Miller was suing wb that is why no new Max film..

reply

Of course, it's mediocre. But also it's much more captivating, entertaining etc. then the absolute majority of big-budget action movies I've seen in 2015.

reply

Whalewithhands, I agree.
It's precisely the overhype that killed it for me: I was expecting to be blown away, not just a bunch of women + retard aimlessly drive around the desert. If they told me "it's a mediocre movie" I would be here on MC trying to convince everybody it's that it's not that bad afterall.
Like I wrote in the op, with some adjustement and some ambition it could have been a true classic.

Maybe the hype mounted exactly this way: they were expecting a turd, instead it was not that bad, because it has some captivating concepts and entertainment, and word of mouth started to build it into something it is not.

reply

If it is "much more captivating, entertaining etc. then the absolute majority of big-budget action movies", then it is, by definition, not mediocre

Something mediocre is of low quality or, at best, average. You cannot, in the same sentence, say that it is both mediocre AND better than the majority of movies of its type

You could say it's good, but not great. You can say it's fun, but not an artistic masterpiece. There are lots of ways to express the idea that something has many good qualities but is ultimately not transcendent. But using the word mediocre just shows that you don't know what common words mean or you're not very good at expressing yourself

reply

Well, after all these years I'm still struggling with my colloquial English!
Go on, blame me some more for not getting the nuances of your native tongue!

As to 'mediocre'... Some movie tagged as SciFi/Action/Adventure could very well consist of captivating action and mediocre SciFi. So, of course, I can (and will) say such things in the same sentence.

reply

That is not what you originally said, though

Like I said, there are ways of expressing yourself clearly, you just did not do that. Clearly you have the capability, as you just said, "the action part is captivating but the sci-fi is not". That is adding nuance, which you didn't in the original post

If anything, you just proved me right, and also contradicted yourself about not understanding the nuances of English

Spanish is my first language, not English. I was still able to learn the nuances

reply

OK, whatever. Heisenberg understood me and I cannot please everybody.

reply

It's not about pleasing, and I don't mean to be pick on you. I don't have a problem with your actual post, per se, my comment was meant more for Heisenberg than for you

Mediocre is not a good word to describe a film like this. I personally, PARTLY, agree with Heisenberg. I went to see it with high expectations because I'm a fan of Tom Hardy. And it was a completely entertaining movie, and a fun ride. I haven't re-watched it since, so I cannot judge for sure, but I also did not feel like I had watched an all-time great

But that's me. I've never been too big on Action movies. I prefer crime, dramas, thrillers, comedies, or other movies that focus more on story. But I also am not going to call this movie mediocre when every year we get garbage Action like Jurassic World, a new Terminator, a Transformers, or glorious wanna-be tentpole super-bombs like Valerian, Jupiter Ascending, John Carter (underrated, tho, IMO), Mortal Engines, Lone Ranger, Fantastic 4our, Tomorrowland, Solo, Robin Hood, Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Pan, A Wrinkle in Time, The Great Wall, Geostorm, etc.

There's literally too many too list. Every single year we get dozens of wannabe franchises looking to make a big splash and then slithering back into the abyss in shame. By the pathetic standards of blockbuster Hollywood, Mad Max DOES have a justifiable argument for being called a masterpiece

reply

Whalewithhands don't feel bad, cyberbob is obviously trolling here, by personally attacking everybody that has a different, and more aware, opinion than him.

"Mediocre" is so perfect for this movie it should be renamed Mediocre Max: Furiosa's road.

reply

Not quite sure how you consider this a glorified B movie, but not the other Mad Max films. I tried watching the first one, and the beginning seems so long and drawn out as well as cheesy and it just didn't hook me.

I understand why people don't like this movie as much as bigger fans of it like myself, but I feel one of the main reasons there's so much hype is because of the use of practical stunts and effects which isn't all that common in big budget films.

reply

The first Mad Max is a low budget movie trying to achieve what big budget movies could, it's not structured as a B movie. It's a simple story, and I agree is quite slow paced and boring, particularly for today standards, but it had lots of guts and ambition. The sequels are definitely not B movies, and they develop the characters and world from the first one quite a bit.
This is a B movie because its story, characters, world, have no developement, no ambition, no arch. There are some good guys against some bad guys. It's so simpleminded that you could watch it with no audio and understand it anyway. The movie exists only to showcase awesome car chases, stunts and post apocalyptic character design.
It's a glorified B movie because, to achieve this modest goal, they pumped a real movie budget in it.

reply

How is there no development though?

reply

Same motivation from start to finish, same characters, the world is postapocalyptic and we know it all. It's as if the authors just stepped on the gas, and kept going from start to finish (almost literally).
They barely try something with the women in the truck and Nux "becoming good", but both don't lead anywhere, as the movie has another agenda.

reply

I don't quite understand what you mean, but to each their own. Everyone has different tastes.

reply

I hate this type of movie analysis, that focuses so strictly on the elements of traditional storytelling. As if the only book that ever needed to be written on good writing was Campbell's "The Hero's Journey"

Characters can be great even if they don't have "character arc" as traditionally understood. The kinds of things you are saying are the kinds of things that someone who has an understanding of storytelling/writing equivalent to that of a beginner-level writing-course student. They learned a few things and now they think they can dissect every single story by looking for those elements that they have learned

I guarantee you that YOU (Heisenberg) could write down all the things you know, all the elements of what you think makes a movie a notch above a "B-movie", and write a screenplay that ticks off all the boxes

I would bet that if you pitched that movie to any professional producers that none of them would give you a call back. Heck, I'd even wager that you would read it yourself and cringe in many parts, so much that you'd be a little embarrassed of showing it to your friends

That is because you are not a storyteller. You're not even a critic. You're like the average dude online, he reads a few books or wikipedia articles or watches some youtube videos on storytelling and dramatic structure and thinks he has it all figured out

The history of art, including cinema, will tell you that breaking the established "rules" of what makes good art can lead to beautiful, transcendant creations.

George Miller, obviously, knows more about storytelling than you ever will. He made the choices that he made for a reason. I didn't even like the movie all that much, but your criticisms of it are so typical and so boring

reply

And if I am wrong about you, I will be the first to admit it and happily eat crow and kiss your ass. Email me a good screenplay or even a short story or WHATEVER that you have personally written. Or even a movie review you wrote that you think is particularly excellent. If I am impressed I won't pretend that I'm not. But I know for sure that that won't happen

reply

Dude give it up. You are In The minority....we win....lmao

reply

"It's a glorified B movie"

which is exactly why it is triumphant. Mad Max was a B-movie franchise from the start. It was altered to appeal to a US audience in Beyond Thunderdome (which in turn ended up being the weakest entry to the series) but at heart it was born out of the Australian cinema renaissance in the 70's, where the government threw a ridiculous amount of money at film productions to stimulate the industry, and consequently a boom of B-pictures were released during those years. It's often referred to as 'Ozploitation' cinema period. Mad Max has obviously endured beyond that period, but it all began there and to me it's not really Mad Max without something that connects it to those humble origins.

I don't see how a different screenwriter would have improved anything (and to that point I think George Miller has already done enough to prove himself "decent" in that department anyway). Do we want long, heartfelt soliloquies in a Mad Max film? Or do we want adrenaline-pumping action sequences and car chases with crazy costumes like we got? The latter for me.

reply

Look, the movie is allright as what you described. The hype does not agree with you (nor me).
I mind quite a bit the idea of having a Mad Max movie with such a Max, and the weakness of the new protagonist (weak from a narrative perspective).
But I would go along with it if it wasn't hailed as such a masterpiece of filmmaking: I doubt any of the original Mad Max would ever aspire to a "best picture" nomination at the oscars.
They were b movies, they got the respect they deserved plus a cult status for the universe they created, had a great protagonist and many memorable antagonists. What else could you want?
This one instead has been pushed on the masses as something "special", when it's the weakest of them all. It's just that the state of current cinema is such that even well crafted mid tier turds like this one stand out just because they are action movies without yet another boring comic book superhero.

reply