Kevin's Watch

Seems like they did shoot the tires on occasion.

I used to drive an 18-wheeler. They are not all-terrain vehicles. You shoot the drive tires or steering tires, and that rig will not go anywhere on a road, much less a desert ... or a bog. If you liked this movie, great. I'm not criticizing you. I just happen to feel this was some of the dumbest shit I've ever seen. They took a giant drum + amplifier + guitar player "car" on a high speed chase through the desert! They performed "grenade/motorcycle ballet." They blew up that truck about 20 times, and still could not stop it? They were prepared to take motorcyles on a 160 day journey through the desert, "fully loaded" with as much water as they could carry, but were going to leave behind the indestructible tanker full of water??? They can develop the technology to pump all this precious water out of the ground, but no one thinks of making some pipes or a reservoir to catch that water ... they just dump it out on the ground for the masses??

These people all deserved to die. I didn't care about a single one of these moving human-shapes laughably known as "characters."

Well, I wouldn't call it hyper-realistic by any means, and it was definitely over the top in the grand old Outback Gothic style of Australian filmmaking.

Anyway, the chase scenes were pretty epic, and it wasn't like the plot was bogged down with preachy navel gazing either. Just pure entertainment. If you weren't entertained, well OK, but it almost sounds like you took this film personally!

I take the film personally only in the sense that I paid my own money to watch it. As someone who was ripped off, I find satisfaction in venting my disapproval and frustration over wasting my time/money, and take solace in potentially helping others to avoid this film.

I also find it appalling that this film was rated/reviewed so highly, which swayed my decision to make this purchase.

I don't really expect navel-gazing, but the Mel Gibson character was at least likable and human. This guy was a bloodbag/hood ornament who occasionally shot at a parade of pale-skinned goons while rescuing a group of girls he cared nothing about and whom he abandoned as soon as the job was done.

An action movie is one thing, but this was like reading something in ALL CAPS with only about five words repeated over and over.

Zarathustra wrote: the indestructible tanker full of water???

The tanker wasn't carrying water....

In that world, water is control and Immortan Joe's control of Citadel is absolute. Why store the water for people to get whenever they want when he can give them a speech and douse them with water from time to time to remind them that they live only because he wishes it?

I think the majority of your complaints are attributable to George Miller's directing and character design. Immortan Joe's War Boys are pale because of the primitive paint they put on themselves; when we first meet them they are reminiscent of vampires (some of them stabilize themselves with infusions of blood from victims) or zombies (with the way they run and swarm at people) and we know how Mr. Miller likes his zombies.

Shooting at people who are chasing you, rescuing people about whom you care nothing, and abandoning them when the job is done is what we call "normal, everyday life" in the Wasteland. Did you fulfill your side of the contract? Good...just be sure the other side pays in full according to the deal or you'll have to hope you get enough barter value from their belongings to replace the bullets you spent.

The point of the movie is that Furiosa is looking for her home only to discover that not only is Citadel home but it is a pretty decent place for proto-civilization to start over. Meanwhile Max just collects his belongings and moves on--his home is the Wasteland.

Again, I suspect your dislikes of the movie are all Mr. Miller's fault because he also helped write the screenplay. I think I mentioned this one--where are they going to drive that takes them 160 days to get there? Did they mean 160 days on foot? Even then, with a full pack you should be able to make 10 miles per day so they are more than 1600 miles from the ocean? Where are they, Novosibirsk?

+JMJ+

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I think I mentioned this one--where are they going to drive that takes them 160 days to get there? Did they mean 160 days on foot? Even then, with a full pack you should be able to make 10 miles per day so they are more than 1600 miles from the ocean? Where are they, Novosibirsk?

AFAIR, the 160 days only meant the limit of their endurance/supplies. It had nothing to do with any specific destination. IOW, they've got 160 day window to find "something" on the hope that there's something to find. For all they know, the oceans (or large parts of them) may well be dead and, thus, a useless destination.

Anyway, FWIW, I thought it was a great movie.

Hashi, whenever someone shot at the tanker, especially when they harpooned it, water spurted out. When Max reaches the tanker for the first time, they had a hose hooked up to it, from which water came out to wash themselves. What makes you think it wasn't a tanker full of water?

Wosbald, I can appreciate that others might have different opinions, and if you're in the mood for pure action, this might be the ticket, but a great movie? I just don't get it. And I like some really bad movies, like Your Highness and Kung Pow. But I can still tell they're not great movies. What did you think was great about it? Did you see the originals? How do you think it compares to those in terms of story and character?

Yeah, come to think of it, it had mother's milk, too. And it seemed to have a hiding space for the ladies. So I guess it was multipurpose.

Just watched it tonight. It's a great action film, and it's wonderful to see so many practical effects with today's amazing 4K video and sound.

But it pales in comparison to the first three films in terms of story. All of them are classic western/samurai films remade in a post-apocalyptic Australian wasteland. As cheesy as MMBT can get, it's a seriously solid film that's basically Shane after the war.

And as good as Tom Hardy is, and as well as he apes Mel Gibson's affectations, he's no Mel Gibson. Aside from the fact that Gibson owns the role, he's simply a better actor and far more capable of emoting without speaking.

I liked it, but it's an utterly beautiful empty vessel.

Cail wrote: I liked it, but it's an utterly beautiful empty vessel.

Again, I think this is more a result of the the weaknesses of George Miller than anything else, given that he is partly responsible for the screenplay and fully responsible for the directing. He wanted to make a movie that was "bang pow boom man that was awesome!" rather than "wow, that movie really had some depth to it". Contrast Fury Road against, say, The Book of Eli, a movie which is relatively quiet despite its post-apocalyptic setting--even the color schemes make a big difference, Fury Road being in full color while Eli is washed out to the point of being black-and-white.

I think we can forgive Mr. Hardy's performance given that Max wasn't actually the central character in the film.

Saw it on DVD a couple of nights ago. A road movie plus a steam punk theme plus a death metal element. Simple but fun.

Very glad I only paid $1.50.

I enjoyed it, but I wasn't expecting much. I was never much of a fan of the previous installments, so there's that.

They can't put elbow rockets in every movie.

wayfriend wrote:They can't put elbow rockets in every movie.

I'm thinking we need a Kickstarter campaign to insure that we can.

wayfriend wrote:They can't put elbow rockets in every movie.

No, but it's hard to imagine a movie that wouldn't be improved by them!

Rigel wrote:

wayfriend wrote:They can't put elbow rockets in every movie.

No, but it's hard to imagine a movie that wouldn't be improved by them!

Elbow rockets are like monster trucks.