spurgeonryan said:
Do you go to see Indiana Jones without Indiana being part of it? What about Dunkirk without it actually being in Dunkirk, maybe on the border instead.
No, so why did we get Mad Max with very little Max? Also how dare they not give Gibson a cameo!
I liked it more than Dunkirk for sure. 75/100 |
This is what I don't get about the negative reactions to Fury Road - when you say stuff like this, it makes it feel like you've never seen a Mad Max film besides maybe the first one(which honestly .... is pretty bad). All of the Mad Max films besides the first are entirely about Max, through a series of events, getting invovled in a group of sympathetic people that he has a clear detatchement with. Mad Max has never been the main focus of the movies, it's always been on the affect he had on the Post Apocalyptic world. That probably sounds mutually exclusive but it really isn't. The formula for the 2nd movie and 3rd are the exact same as Fury Road. He's there helping others to get out of a bad situation - and then at the end he walks away in the sunset to become a mysticized stuff of legends for simply taking a few days to help people. What has always been great about the Mad Max films is Max showing his humanity in a world where its non existent. He is almost always reluctant to help people, but he always ends up doing it from a cold distant perspective. He is like a folk hero of the Apocalypse. If you don't like Fury Road because it's "not enough Mad Max", tell me what part in the movies did he take center stage entirely or have some epic speech or have tons of dialogue. There isn't, except maybe the origin story.
Is it because you don't like the female protaganists?
Also they're all directed by the same guy
