By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Mad Max was a bit meh

Aj_habfan on 08 June 2015

I didn't think much of the movie from the previews, but strong word of mouth caught my interest.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, from start to finish. Maybe if you start analyzing certain areas closely you can find flaws, but I don't think I could have asked for much more from an action movie.



Around the Network
Lawlight on 08 June 2015
mountaindewslave said:
Lawlight said:

Maybe I'm not a fan of vehicular combat but I didn't think the action was anything special. It all felt too similar.

Max as a character - what the hell was that performance. He was grunting like a caveman and had psychological problems. It is a far cry from the cool characterisation by Mel Gibson.

The plot was paper-thin with motivations being as thin.

It is a case of style over substance.


hard to take the OP of this thread seriously when they're expecting an extreme action film to have some complicated advanced plot

this movie is in vein of the original Mad Max movies- they're ACTION movies. popcorn movies, for the stunts, the style, the raw emotion. 

   the only thing particularly weak maybe was Tom Hardy wasn't an amazing Max, but its as if you didn't watch any of the trailers or have never seen "The Road Warrior" if you were expecting something totally different

 

I for one think this iteration of Mad Max has some of the prettiest and most fantastical (in a good way) action sequences I've ever seen on film. the amount of work it must have taken to manage a lot of those scenes is incredible, especially some of those chases with like a kajillion funky vehicles (practical effects were almost entirely used in this film)

I thought it was like an 8/10 movie but maybe that's just me. people I saw it with dug it too. again though, if you're not a fan of the originals or action movies in general then it's going to be hard to get behind this. it's essentially a big chase with a little story thrown in here and there

in terms of action movies I don't think you can beat the new Mad Max


I've only watched Mad Max 2 and part of 3. Mad Max 2 had a lot of things going on and a great Max was one of things that made the movie great.

If the action is not going to be varied, the movie needs to have a plot that's a bit more complex. Unfortunately here, the action is bombastic for the first half and then it becomes tiresome and, on top of that, if you don't switch off your brain, several things don't make sense.



Lawlight on 08 June 2015
McDonaldsGuy said:
Why do people say "It's style over substance" as if it's a bad thing? Sometimes style over substance CAN be a good thing, and that's the case here.


It's not bad if the style is varied.



Robert_Downey_Jr. on 08 June 2015

Why do people always take stuff to extremes to disprove someone? Just because he said the plot was too simple doesn't mean he wanted Shakespeare. The movie really is a bit TOO simplistic for me. It has great action but that's just one element of an action movie. I give it a solid 7/10 and I'm a tough grader. It did have some great action but how high can we score it on great practical effects alone? No one's performance stood out and with the villains it was just being weird for the sake of being weird. I liked the action but not as much as other recent films like the Raid 1 and 2, John Wick, and Kingsmen.



I am Iron Man

HEMSTAR on 09 June 2015

Amazing movie.



Around the Network
ihatefatkatz on 09 June 2015

Blasphemy! Lol

I like hardy's Max. I got a sense that he was a person that was devoid of human interaction for a long time which fits well into the context and setting. The action was top notch as well.

So i'll respectively disagree with your assessment.



mornelithe on 09 June 2015
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Why do people always take stuff to extremes to disprove someone? Just because he said the plot was too simple doesn't mean he wanted Shakespeare. The movie really is a bit TOO simplistic for me. It has great action but that's just one element of an action movie. I give it a solid 7/10 and I'm a tough grader. It did have some great action but how high can we score it on great practical effects alone? No one's performance stood out and with the villains it was just being weird for the sake of being weird. I liked the action but not as much as other recent films like the Raid 1 and 2, John Wick, and Kingsmen.

Yeah the Raid 1 and 2, and to a lesser degree Kingsman were excellent (really, the Raid 1 and 2 belong in a category unto themselves).



Porcupine_I on 09 June 2015

You're a bit meh

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Tachikoma on 09 June 2015

Hollywood is incapable of making movies as classic as those made in the 70s to early 90s.

I left about half way through the movie to go hit the arcade.



Lawlight on 09 June 2015
Robert_Downey_Jr. said:
Why do people always take stuff to extremes to disprove someone? Just because he said the plot was too simple doesn't mean he wanted Shakespeare. The movie really is a bit TOO simplistic for me. It has great action but that's just one element of an action movie. I give it a solid 7/10 and I'm a tough grader. It did have some great action but how high can we score it on great practical effects alone? No one's performance stood out and with the villains it was just being weird for the sake of being weird. I liked the action but not as much as other recent films like the Raid 1 and 2, John Wick, and Kingsmen.


Thank you. I'm a tough grader too but I tend to score based on how the movie made me feel. And I distinctly remember not being able to care much after the storm. I give it a 6/10.