Wednesday, July 15, 2015

A Very Late Review of 'Mad Max: Fury Road,' 2015


Due to the fact that I have a five and a two year old, I don't really set foot into movie theaters much these days other than to watch Minions or Elsa. But I was finally able to go catch the new (well, couple months old now) Mad Max film. We can get one thing out of the way right now: this movie kicks more ass than almost anything else you will go see. I do admit that I am a huge fan of the original 80's trilogy featuring a pre-crazy Mel Gibson, but as I told my friend last night who accompanied me, you don't really have to see the other movies to understand a Mad Max movie. That does not diminish the films, they are just primal and straightforward: they are about survival and suriviving while keeping your humanity. And I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic cinema.

Did I mention that this movie kicks ass? I am sure most of you know by now from reviews, both professional and from friends, that it is one big adrenaline soaked chase. While that might be a slight oversimplification, it is only slight. What is remarkable about what George Miller has done is that he keeps it interesting throughout. 'Mad Max 2,' aka 'The Road Warrior' in the U.S., remains one of the greatest action films ever made. In part because the stunts are so kinetic and breathtaking. The same goes for this new film. In a day of ever increasing, mind numbing CGI-fests, Miller keeps the digital effects to a minimum. This stuff is the real thing, and it shows. Miller and his crew really did build these ridiculous three story bohemoth automobiles, tie a dude to the third story, drive insane speeds through the desert, and tell him to play guitar while flames shoot out of his axe...


The action and mayhem is difficult to top. Few modern movies do, and George Miller don't need no stinkin' CGI to do it. Just give him some vehicles and an open road, and he will top the action of any superhero snoozefest.

A word about Tom Hardy, who takes over the role of Max from Mel Gibson. Gibson is so linked to that role (it is what broke him through to an international audience and first made him a star), it might be difficult to accept another actor. Hardy is fantastic, and has a little of the crazy himself. Mel and Hardy supposedly met early in the filming and Mel gave him his blessing to take the Max Rokatansky character into the new century. Like Gibson's Max, Hardy's is a man of very few words. So much of what he conveys is both through brutal action but even more importantly, his face. The resignation, tension, then determination, fury, sympathy, humanity...it is all there with no wasted words.

But Max and Hardy are really beside the point here. Charleze Theron is absolutely stunning. Hands down her Imperator Furiosa is the greatest female action character I have ever seen. And I'll tell you why. I find it sad (and irritating) that so many films, when trying to portray a female action hero, simply make her masculine and think that is enough. It is always the same vibe of "oh look, she can do five flips in the air too and kick you unconscious or fire automatic weapons and make quips and stare you down." (Thank you 'Matrix' films for decreeing that all action heroes must also be CGI-enabled acrobats). Now make no mistake, her Furiosa can kick your or my ass. Easily. She and Max engage in a brutal fight that is more or less a draw when they first meet. And fighting Max is like fighting a caged animal in its cage. Miller could have simply stopped where almost every other director would. Just make her another bad-ass, but she happens to have breasts.


But Miller and Theron never stop there. Theron creates a character of strength and action, yet retains a vulnerability and uniquely female understanding of suffering in this world. Like with Hardy's performance, Theron does not need nor use profuse dialogue. It is mostly through her eyes and action that we come to understand who her character is and you cannot keep your eyes off of her. I will be furious if Theron does not recieve a Oscar nomination for her Furiosa. Max, as we all know from way back, is a "shell of a man" who is singularly focused on survival. He kind of has to be, as he starts the film a prisoner who is strapped to a car and connected to an IV and is being used as a blood bank for his cancer-ridden captor. In fact, that is his name for awhile, "Blood Bag." Below...


So the Theron character has to offer the heart and soul of the film and dare to hope for a future. It is Theron's Furiosa that provides the plot, or why everyone is racing across the desert and killing eachother. She has rescued a handful of other women who were being used as "breeders" for the evil Imperator Joe. That is a large factor in the strength of her character. She is running from and fighting against one of the most basic, ancient and horrible crimes, sexual slavery, that is based inherently upon the differences between the sexes. This wouldn't work if they just made a masculine hero who happens to be female. And of course it is through Furiosa that Max finds his own humanity once again.

So this movie works on this level, and it also works as a fantastic and intense action flick. And did I mention that it kicks ass?

**** out of *****

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Tom, great review! Absolutely loved this movie. However, I must disagree about your comment on CGI and what you call "superhero snoozefest." I write this a person who grew up during the final heyday of practical special effects in the mid-1990s and then got exposed to CGI. Granted CGI can be abused to the point of looking very cartoonish (i.e. Matrix, Jupiter Ascending), but on the other hand CGI has helped to make movies that could not have possible been accomplished with practical effects. This leads me to my next point about superhero films. I think the snoozefest comment could have been easily applicable to early comic book movies of the 2000s (i.e. The first X-Men films, the Rami Spider-Man films, Ghost Rider), but those were the early days of trying to make comic book superheroes be relatable and not over the top campy (i.e. Batman & Robin). Once Marvel got running with the Iron Man movie in 2008, and currently now, they have shown how to utilize CGI well in making superheroes be "real" and believable. I mean, could you watch Guardians of the Galaxy and think it would be better if Rocket Raccoon and Groot be animatronic Jim Henson-puppets? What I am basically saying is that with superhero films you need CGI to make their powers real, rather than practical effects to make them look like a bad B-movie. Marvel's superhero films are also now and have added elements of different film genres to make them stand out amongst the other comic book competitors (i.e. DC and their philosophy that heroes must be dark, grim, and brooding in the rain). Marvel's use of genre incorporation in their films (and their TV shows) has made them stand out to be unique in their own right and receive praise, all the while keeping the basic story elements of superhero books embedded within. I know from reading this blog that you are not a big comic book fan, but I what I am saying is keep an open mind with this genre. You don't have to agree with me, and that is okay. Just giving my two cents here.

Dezmond said...

Thanks for commenting Tyler. Your points are well taken, and perhaps i was more dismissive of cgi effects than i really feel to make the point about Miller's bold decision not to rely on them.

But, i still do not think cgi has caught up with reality. If you watch Fury Road or Road Warrior, they just look better. The best example is compare the original Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back with the Prequels. The meticulous work done in the late 70s using models and miniatures looks better than the thoroughly fake feeling Prequels. I know cgi has improved and Lucas is always an easy target, but still. Fury Road has such adrenaline and kinetic energy because those really are cars racing across the desert.

You make a good point that there are some films that you simply cannot do without computer generated effects. But they are often overwhelming, used as a crutch, and take the place of actual character development and story.

Are you also a commentator at future rock legends? I'm not Tom, by the way. I will work on that snubs post you suggested. Thanks for reading and commenting.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the response Dez. I used to comment on Future Rock Legends, but did it anonymously. I no longer do it though. Sorry for the name mix up, there. As for the Rock Hall snubs post series, can I make a suggestion that you start with the band Yes. I think it would quite a good way to start off the series by looking at a band that has been criminally ignored while also explaining why progressive rock deserves to be represented in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I can not wait to see the artists you pick in the series. Here's to championing acts like Yes, ELP, ELO, Jethro Tull, Iron Maiden, Motley Crue, the Cure, Judas Priest, Styx, Supertramp, Pat Benatar, and many more!

ANCIANT said...

Criminally ignored is right.