Is Mad Max: Fury Road Overrated...Or Nah?

[Neuromancer]

It was okay at best.

 

[FlyRy]

Had a day off so I decided to just a couple flicks and clean around. Had Mad Max downloaded so I decided to give it a try.

Couldn't get past 15 minutes before rage quitting from the boredom and went to go watch Ant Man instead

 

[I AM WARHOL]

It's just lazy. Go into detail as to why you didn't like the movie.

How about if you do both. Like call in overrated and expound on why you believe it is overrated with details

 

[I AM WARHOL]

I think people have though, including warhols post this thread is based on.

Visually it's great but if we are being real that's where it stops being GOAT. Was the dialogue next level, no. Was the plot next level, no. It basically is a long as car chase and the as mentioned earlier the excuse that you have to just take it for what it is, is flimsy. I guess Harold and Kumar is GOAT if you just take it for what it is too right

It's a beautifully shot film with a good score that was heralded as a GOAT film when it's not

I think some are taking it wrongly. People (for the most part) are saying its overrated not that it's trash or not enjoyable.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

Yes. It was a good action flick. The only thing that stuck with me when I left the theatre was the visuals not the script(good for what it was, but not best picture good)

 

[Still Benefited]

I liked it,thinking back on it though,i have a feeling if I watched it again I wouldn't like it

But if a movie is only good for one viewing does that make it a bad movie?Especially a movie that's mostly strong on the visuals and stunts.

 

[Swiggy]

The movie had no real story, plot was lacking, and very limited dialogue. Yea the action and cinematography was great but it wasn't great enough to overshadow those issues.

What makes it piff is that it didn't try to be anything other than a visual experience, and it executed it to perfection. Film making isn't always about plot, but bad plots are usually married to lazy film making, and there was nothing lazy about the execution of the film. It could have been a movie with no dialogue and pure action, and shyt would still be better than most action movies.

 

[obarth]

You may find it overrated but the only thing that that opinion does for you is set you apart as a person who clearly has no understanding of fundamental concepts in film making.

Thread title might as well be 'Are you a pleb or nah?'

So please enlighten us plebs as to the fundamental concepts of film making that we have no understanding of concerning this movie

 

[obarth]

What makes it piff is that it didn't try to be anything other than a visual experience, and it executed it to perfection. Film making isn't always about plot, but bad plots are usually married to lazy film making, and there was nothing lazy about the execution of the film. It could have been a movie with no dialogue and pure action, and shyt would still be better than most action movies.

I don't think anybody here is hating on Mad Max: Fury Road, breh. But to use your logic, John Wick should have been up for a Golden Globe last year. It didn't try to be anything other than an action experience, and it executed it to perfection. This pick and choose culture of what movies we let slide because of "what they were going for" when we didn't spend a second in the production process has to stop.

 

[I AM WARHOL]

I don't think anybody here is hating on Mad Max: Fury Road, breh. But to use your logic, John Wick should have been up for a Golden Globe last year. It didn't try to be anything other than an action experience, and it executed it to perfection. This pick and choose culture of what movies we let slide because of "what they were going for" when we didn't spend a second in the production process has to stop.

THANK YOU

 

[TheGodling]

I think people have though, including warhols post this thread is based on.

Visually it's great but if we are being real that's where it stops being GOAT. Was the dialogue next level, no. Was the plot next level, no. It basically is a long as car chase and the as mentioned earlier the excuse that you have to just take it for what it is, is flimsy. I guess Harold and Kumar is GOAT if you just take it for what it is too right

It's a beautifully shot film with a good score that was heralded as a GOAT film when it's not

I think some are taking it wrongly. People (for the most part) are saying its overrated not that it's trash or not enjoyable.

Now see, that's just fukking bullshyt. The world-building in the movie is Grade A and one of the biggest reasons for that is because the perfectly tuned dialogue.

From the warcry-like Witness Me's, Kamikrazy's and Mediocre's to the more cerebral touches like :

'Is that just the wind, or is it some furious fixation?'

or (talking about bullets):

'Angharad used to call them anti-seed.'
'Plant one and watch something die.'

Everything said, and especially the way that it is said, brings life to this world and in that sense this actually might be the only film this year truly delivering next level dialogue. Dialogue that doesn't take place in the world, but forms the world itself with every word spoken.

Now regarding the plot, it might not be "next level" or whatever the fukk that means (perhaps Saving Private Ryan isn't next level because it's a WWII movie?), it tells one of the most classic stories of all. A woman desperately in search of hope. A man beyond redemption. Both find it in the place they least expect. It's simple and straight forward but it's told with such nuance that is far more effective than most of the Hollywood-drama-trope-filled nonsense that comes out every week. It is far more than just an action movie, the action (like any good action movie) is simply a medium that pushes/motivates the main characters in ways they can't push themselves. Do you think things would've ever gotten right between John McClane and Holly if Gruber & co didn't happen? Do you think Riggs would've ever gotten out of his suicidal self-destructive behavior if he didn't get paired up with Murtaugh? Do you think Rama would've ever gotten out of that damn tenement building if it wasn't to bring back his brother? Great action is more than just explosions, fist fights and shootouts, action itself is a storytelling medium just like dialogue is. It's just a bit more expressive and sure as hell a lot less talky.

So please enlighten us plebs as to the fundamental concepts of film making that we have no understanding of concerning this movie

Editing for one, specifically editing continuity. For a movie as chaotic and hectic it is the editing is pitch perfect with every single shot following the previous shot right in place. I've spoken on it before but there's a scene where they throw a guy of the rig but he hangs on as a polecat wagon approaches and lifts one of the girls out of the rig, and that scene uses like ten different shots and in every shot every vehichle and every person is exactly where they would be following the previous shot. That's not just insanely difficult to pull off, it's almost impossible. And this movie does it consistently right for two hours! That's a technical feat that not many action movies can even dream of trying to pull off, let alone achieve it. Most people might be blind to this shyt (hell, seeing people try to defend Transformers movies, I know they're fukking blind to this shyt) but that's just masterclass film making. There's a reason Orson Welles said the movie that taught him everything about editing was the chase in John Ford's Stagecoach, because there's nothing more difficult to edit than an action scene. To capture the intensity and the chaos at all the peak moments but still structure the whole ordeal in a way that we can follow exactly what happens.

And I've already spoken on the narrative above but again, the movie relies almost entirely on show, not tell. Which is kind of a breathe of fresh air in what's primarily a visual medium, nowadays occupied heavily by expository dialogues. There's not a wasted sentence or a word here, yet the story, the characters' motivations, the world they live in, we know everything we need to know about it. How many movies can pull that off. Even current big-time movie The Revenant, hailed for Leo's long silent performance, can't help but fall into some dialogues to explain things that perhaps didn't need that much explaining (Tom Hardy's villain character in that one really loves to explain his motivations). If a character has to explain it, you didn't show it right. Nothing in Mad Max needs to be further explained than it has, and that is grade A storytelling.

I could go on but I actually have other things to do than write my thirtieth titangraph on this movie so I'll just respond to this quickly:

I don't think anybody here is hating on Mad Max: Fury Road, breh. But to use your logic, John Wick should have been up for a Golden Globe last year. It didn't try to be anything other than an action experience, and it executed it to perfection. This pick and choose culture of what movies we let slide because of "what they were going for" when we didn't spend a second in the production process has to stop.

John Wick deserved recognition a lot more than certain highly praised movies of last year. It's funny you talk about what movies we let slide, because to me your logic is holding movies back. I bet that stupid-ass logic is why The Dark Knight never got that awards recognition the fanboys so desperately craved for, because it was looked upon as just a superhero movie, just a summer blockbuster, and that one actually tried pretty goddamn hard to be more than that. The idea that Mad Max: Fury Road doesn't deserve recognition for being one of the best movies of the year because you think an "award movie" has to live up to certain standards (you can claim that's not what you meant, but you're clearly implying that "just an action movie" isn't up to standard for an "award movie") is exactly what's wrong with many of these awards shows.

All the while you'll still have people complaining about pure Oscar Bait prestige movies like The Danish Girl because it's sure to nab a bunch of nominations as it checks every little box of what the feeble minds of today's movie audience and Academy voters thinks makes a prestige picture. But guess what, John Wick was separated from the low-budget Gary Daniels/Danny Trejo/Mickey Rourke/JCVD headlined action revenge movies of last year because of good film making. It stood out from the pack of all the other action movies that year because of good film making. Because good film making can not be denied, no matter how hard you ignorant plebs try with your uninformed lack of comprehension on what makes a movie tick.

And yes, that was my 'quick' response.

 

[I AM WARHOL]

^^^ what an ostentatious post^^^

"I am a real film fan and you are not"
~mad max stans

 

[wire28]

Eh the action stops telling the story after ol girl gets ran over. It's a long ass car chase. And the rest of any meaningful plot is told via the dialogue (non GOAT level dialogue ) when the old girls tell ol girl that their home doesn't exist anymore. Other than that it's a bunch of cool looking weirdos chasing some girls non stop.

 

[eufemism]

The extreme lack of a story and the fact that they basically just rewind the story in the second half of the movie make it a B rated movie for me

I'd only watch it again to see certain scenes but I don't think I'd make it through a second watch

Even in the movie theater on my first view I was getting bored near the end

 

[eufemism]

^^^ what an ostentatious post^^^

"I am a real film fan and you are not"
~mad max stans

Breh is seriously trying to write a thesis on human emotion based off an action film