Being led to believe that this would be a virtually non-stop din plus a fair helping of spectacle and little else, I went along armed with cotton wool balls to plug my auricular orifices should it have been necessary. In the event I didn't use them. The film wasn't quite as totally vacuous as my expectation of it, though in terms of entertaining me it did leave much to be desired.
Tom Hardy is now in the role previously occupied by the career self-destroying Mel Gibson in the 1979 original version of this basic plot (such as there is) followed by its less satisfactory sequels. I like Hardy a lot but didn't find it so easy to accept him as the title character, a
man with no compunction about killing left, right and centre.
Admittedly. he was fleeing for his life from his foes, barbarian
grotesques who'd themselves think nothing of wholesale slaughter to
achieve their purpose. Yet under this tough-man exterior, evolved
through a lifetime of being forced to survive by any means, Max can melt
to reveal that he has a cream-puff interior. I suppose the
unbelievablity of the character itself has more to do with it than the
actor playing the part. I dare say that in the original (seen when it
was first released and never again since) I must have felt the same way
about the then unknown Gibson.
On the other hand we have Charlize
Theron as the softly-spoken, one-handed Furiosa with whom Max hitches an
escaping lift - but by golly, underneath she's as tough as old boots!
She has in tow a bevy of (initially) five beauties, forced wives of the
dastardly chief villain from whom they have been rescued. They are
wearing little more than semi-diaphanous white shifts. But additional
protection is unnecessary as their faces and exposed body parts manage
to escape the slightest graze or mark despite a max-voltage chase
through the wilds of the Australian deserts with bullets, shrapnel,
missiles, fire and God-knows what else zinging past them by millimeters -
though, it must be said that as a concession, some of their hairstyles
do get rather mussed. (Must have been such a nuisance!)
The
Furiosa character is very much one-dimensional - though there are hints
that (surprise, surprise!) she too has a heart of gold. If it wasn't
for the frequent cacophonous noise level around her voice might have
the property of sending one into slumber.
Apart for the two main
characters the film is peopled with deformed and/or painted minor
characters, some hideously so, their bodies either deliberately shaped
or adorned with ornamental metals, tattoos, survival paraphernalia and
this and that, all calculated to heighten ones feeling of revulsion.
One
accepts, these days, that much of the long-shot fight scenes and views
of crowds is achieved by CGI, a technique which, if it impresses at all,
still manages to detract from taking ones breath away. I understand
that Hardy did all his stunts himself and there's certainly no shortage
of on-screen acrobatics and contortions here, yet hardly anything that
we haven't seen before even though it is sustained for unusually long
sequences in this film.
I also hear that it was shot in 2D and only later 'enhanced' in the workshops for 3D 'depth'. I doubt if the extra dimension was more than an improvement than a distraction.
Director George Miller manages to
keep the action sections moving along at a cracking pace, with
exceptionally fine editing. There were hardly any times I noticed where
the 'joins' showed.
However, I must own that the whole
enterprise soon began trying my patience. The first time I looked at my
watch it was just twenty minutes in, and it's a two-hour film. I did
think that I might well leave before the finish though I managed to stay
the course, largely due by my getting more drawn in by the second half
than I'd been feeling in the first hour.
Overall, I found it an 'okay' sort of film. It did what it was required to do, and that rather well, it must be said.
But it was all very superficial - delivering thrills galore if that's what
you're after though with nothing underneath. However, it's not exactly the
kind of film where one would search for profundities, and nor does it purport
to be.
Anyway, after due consideration I'll opt for giving it a rating of....................5.5
38 minutes ago
Ray,
ReplyDeleteI'll forward your review to my Canadian pal Pat. He and his friend Ed like this kind of racing, mad, CGI movie ("Fast and Furious" they love). For me, I'm watching the BBC series "Here Come the Midwives", which I find fascinating. I've tried o get Pat interested in this series but alas, without CGI or a mad car race, I'm at a disadvantage. But I did tell him there are several bicycle scenes which might excite.
Ron
Without telling fibs, Ron, I was thinking that this is the precisely the kind of film that your Pat would love. From what I know of him if he hadn't already seen it I'd have been very surprised, but if that's the case anything I say wouldn't be enough to put him off anyway. As it's not our own cup of tea I've gone and seen it for you.
DeleteI'm not familiar with 'Here Come the Midwives', but as is so often the case, what's a TV hit (or not) usually passes me by. Good luck on trying it out on Pat. Maybe if he's keener on TV than I am it might work.
Once i realised it was rubbish...i kind of liked it......though its easy to miss the plot sometimes as everything moves so fast......
ReplyDeleteWhat plot, J.G.? Oh, THAT plot! It's the kind of film where you can put your brain to sleep while allowing your eyes and ears to do all the work. In one, straight out the other.
DeleteI had a hard time swallowing all of those rave reviews Ray so I'm pleased to read your more realistic score. Did you watch the first Eurovision semi last night? It's funny how a good stage presentation can elevate a song I'd earlier discarded - Belgium being a case in point. I also liked Estonia as it reminded me of last years Netherlands country style entry.
ReplyDeleteSome opinions really were OTT, Craig, but even the average rating submitted to IMDB is a whopping 8.8, which leaves me gobsmacked - and in despair!
DeleteYes, of COURSE, I watched Eurovision last night. My opinion of Belgium was also raised a notch, though not nearly enough to make me hope it wins. I still think Estonia deserves it.
My big sorrow of the night was that Denmark, which I thought was the third best of all, didn't make it through. If its old 60s style played against it it doesn't hold out much hope for the UK entry, though fingers are still crossed.
My biggest fear is that Russia's going to take it again - not that it's a bad entry, but there are at least half a dozen better. And Russia, of all countries!
Btw: Wasn't the Australian guy being interviewed so gloriously and attractively camp? Had no idea from the video that he'd be like that - and he's gone and grown a bit of a beard as well, which I do hope he's not going to remove for Saturday. I'm rooting for him even more now.
I was shocked about Denmark too... that was one of my three picks. Shows you what I know! I have a feeling that Russia will do really well too. Like you I don't dislike it, but there are better songs. Estonia was very good - I have no idea why it didn't click with me before. We'll see how Italy does on Saturday and Norway in the 2nd semi. Yes Guy Sebastian was lovely... that mixed Malaysian/Anglo look was glorious.
DeleteItaly's song is one that grows on one, at least it has with me though you recognised it straight away, so let's wish them luck.
DeleteStill not sure about Norway but let's hope it makes it if only to stop the whole damn thing being biassed towards the eastern side of Europe.
Saturday is the single night of the year I stay up as late as eleven o'clock. The routine now is that I go to bed puzzled why the song that won did win, as I did last year. Hope it'll be different this time.
Actually there was very little CGI used in making this film http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/14/mad-max-practical-effects/ which is one of the reasons it's getting such rave reviews : no guys swinging around on poles in front of green screens, they were actually on moving vehicles which in today's movie world is very amazing.
ReplyDeleteI'd assumed that CGI had been used extensively, Dave, so I ought to be a bit awestruck now in recollecting the actors' antics. It's a wonder that there weren't any serious injuries (or were there?) - or even worse. I hope they were paid proportionally higher for such death-defying stunts.
DeleteI didn't hear of anybody getting hurt, but I do know the tension on the set was so intense Hardy publicly apologized to Miller at Cannes. The problem with CGI is that the process is so commonplace people have grown to accept it, even in non-action films.
DeleteDave, it seems that now that we are aware of the existence of CGI which can be used at anytime it has removed the heart-stopping moments we used to get in the cinema. No more "How on earth did they do that?" moments.
DeleteI think one of the first films that underlined this loss was 'Titanic' all of (gosh!) 18 years ago now. When I first saw it I was thrilled, impressed and moved by the sinking. Then later I learned about how CGI had been used and on seeing it again there wasn't the same involvement with the action. Pity. It seems that for all its efficiency, CGI tends to remove the 'magic', which is particularly regrettable when, as in films like 'Mad Max, as you say, CGI was NOT employed yet I assumed that it had been - and I bet I'm not alone. Seems such a waste of effort, risk and danger for the film-makers and acyors, all for the precise same effect.
I love reading movies reviews about movies I don't plan to see but have enough interest to hear about them. thank you for your review.
ReplyDeleteThanks (again) Dr Spo, though I do always have a niggling awareness that I might well be putting off people from seeing a film that they might otherwise have enjoyed, though I suppose that's a chance every critic must take.
Delete