It's funny because that's exactly why I'm excited for it; crazy creativity. It seems, in a way, very daring (in an economical sense), very over-the-top and, indeed, very damn stupid. Where do you see that these days? Grim action-suspense films are nearly a dime-a-dozen these days, which indeed is why the first Mad Max is so far ahead of its time perhaps, it heralded many tropes that these days are trampled flat.Razorback0z said:
Totally get what your saying and I think if it wasn't for the fact that most movies seem to go for the "stunt porn" angle that I don't get excited by it. Of course your right that very few do it well. But Id rather see stunt porn in an environment I didn't care so much about.Cowabungaa said:
Well, that's the thing; do they? Are there that many movies that dare to make a movie with a car chase that's over half an hour long, teeming with live stunt work and practical effects? Maybe the last couple of Fast&Furious movies have been a little like it, but I'd argue that even someone like Michael Bay doesn't truly dare to actually, properly focus on the action itself as something in itself.Razorback0z said:
I think this is part of the issue with how these films are received. MM1 was essentially a psychological thriller about a man's descent into madness and ultimate surrender to his animalistic side - a policeman who becomes a brutal murderer and drifter by the end. MM2 was, as the article notes, actually a western. And MM3 was a post-apocalyptic almost sci-fi film with more of a focus on society and politics (and, yes, ass-less chaps). It's not that any of the three films is necessarily worse than the others, it's just that despite having similar visual design and settings, they're actually in three entirely different genres. People who liked one of them won't necessarily like the others because underneath all the spikes and leather they're not actually the same kind of film.Tanis said:
Having read the actual piece on RoK (and to be honest, the article you linked to is a sad hatchet job) the original writer also brings up the problem of the movie being named after a particular character that ends up being pushed into the background by somebody else (who happens to be a woman). It's possible that there isn't an underlying agenda in doing so, but it certainly sounds fishy.soren7550 said:
Shoot, not just Borderlands. Fallout, Rage, Borderlands, Book of Eli, Doomsday, Waterworld, Krush Kill n Destroy (a 90's RTS game) all owe a lot to Mad Max. I'm not sure if Mad Max and Road Warrior invented the "post-apocalyptic world where leather clad savages fight over water and fuel", but it definitely popularized it.TheVampwizimp said:
So, I just watched the first two Mad Max films for the first time, and after thinking about it for a bit, I think I like the first film more. A lot of it had to do with the fact that I've been so over exposed by media that's been heavily influenced by Mad Max 2 (e.g. Rage, Fallout, Borderlands etc.) so a lot of the novelty that made Mad Max 2 so iconic was lost on me (still a great film though). Since I had very little prior knowledge about the series when I began to watch them, I thought all of them were post-apocalyptic action movies, so I was really surprised to discover how different the original Mad Max was. The idea of a still functional society that is right on the edge of falling apart felt somehow more retroactively novel. And the depiction of Max going from happy family man to the tragic anti hero that he's most famously known for at the end was masterfully done. It's like a better Punisher film than any other Punisher that's been released to date. I was also surprised by how late the actual revenge aspect of the film kicked into gear within the story. You'd usually expect the tragic catalyst that spurs this kind of plot to happen right in the beginning.Gorrath said:
Oh no doubt that MM1's staging was pretty masterful. I like the film, to be sure. But I saw these movies as a young person and rewatched them many times since. Back then MM1 didn't seem to be much of a crazy stretch while MM2 and 3 seemed to give us a really interesting take on where Max and the world were headed. Now that the plot, asthetics, story points, characters and kitchen sink from MM2-3 have been regurgitated by other movies ad nauseum, I can certainly see how MM1 seems novel by comparison. I'll never see it that way because of where it sits in the trilogy and history for me but I can totally appreciate why someone could watch all three now and conclude that MM1 was the best and most interesting of the trio.jhoroz said:
Also bear in mind that MM1 is famous for other things that we can now only see in retrospect.Gorrath said:
