Yesterday I watched Fury Road.
I've never been a big fan of Mad Max.
The first one I saw only once at the age of ten on the sofa between mom and dad. To the left, my mother who said every five minutes: "but popcorn is small he can’t watch this stuff, change the channel" and my father showed a total disregard of his role assigned by mother nature, shrugged it off. I left terrified and alienated, today I only remember a guy whose wife and child were slaughtered, tied with a chain to the fender of a car and taken up and down the deserts of Australia. Oh, I also remember that it had nothing post-apocalyptic about it.
Then there’s the second one which is a whole different story. That is a badass movie. Too bad that on TV it was aired like "never," and I had to wait to be able to rent the VHS down here to see it. Which then "down here" up to a certain point, because then "down here" they started making pizza and falafel, and goodbye to old films which now I have to walk a long way to find on foot. Anyway, great story Mad Max 2 (I avoid the English titles, it risks creating a mess with few precedents, evil dead is nothing compared) Mad Max 2 is the world of Ken Shiro, including violence, before Ken Shiro. And with cars instead of Okuto. A lot of explosions basically.
In the third Mad Max, there's Tina Turner, kids who seem like the underfed and depressed cousins of the lost boys from "Hook", Master Blaster, the desert of Ken Shiro, a lot more money, and a lot less violence.
I must have seen it a dozen times and I don’t remember anything else, because: I'm not a Mad Max fan and I'm not a Miller fan either. Sure, I know that you’re smart and prepared and you think you can fool me and come to say "come on pop, The Witches of Eastwick is a comedy you can’t not like." Here, good, I know you know things, but did you know that his last work before Fury Road was "Happy Feet 2"? and before that it was "Happy Feet 1"? and before even that it was "Babe: Pig in the City"?
Eh, hard to believe right?
Anyway, what the hell did I go to the cinema for yesterday, then?
Nothing, it's just that for about six months these two minutes have been circulating online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoYlqdBtRSw and I am a romantic type.
How's the movie? Flashy as the trailer, absurd as the trailer, violent as the trailer, "original" as the trailer. It's basically that stuff for two hours.
So: the plot is zero, content you won’t find even if you dig hard enough, whereas halfway through the movie you'll find an adrenaline enema stuck in your butt (unless you are one of those people who are so boring and with interjecting "but this movie is all special effects." which besides being a boring phrase also serves as a counterpoint to the historical "electronic music is not music because the computer does it all" and whether you like it or not it’s been trash for years. It’s better if you avoid bringing it up because it really stinks.
The movie is a triumph of "stuff to see". Wide, very wide shots, always or almost always wide-angle, meticulous attention to the details of the sets (oh my, I don’t know if cars can usually be considered sets, here actually they are practically the entire set). The color correction work is magnificent, a breathtaking deep blue, a chase between wind and sand RED, but what the heck, you have to see how red that brown is, I mean: it's brown, but it's red! ... and how the heck can I explain it in words. well, there’s always the previous trailer above...
Miller focuses everything on the aesthetics, redesigns the character of Max on the hyper-muscles of Tom Hardy, the one that if he stays silent the whole film is a genius, if he talks the whole film on the cell phone is a genius, if he wears the mask the whole film is a genius. In short, Tom Hardy, the guy who can act. And he is the most taciturn Max ever, disillusioned and disenchanted, like the old Max, only here there’s someone who lets you understand it with his face and there’s no need for a voice-over to tell you what kind of guy he is. As mentioned, the focus is entirely on the aesthetics, and: BOOM! it’s not that it's particularly interested in the chicks in the film, however, there are five or six led by the one that appears the most ordinary of them all. Charlize Theron. That, usually, Charlize and the bathroom are two corridors, three salons, a kitchen, a guest room, the leisure wing, the stables, the riding arena, the clay pigeon-shooting park away, and then maybe (maybe) you might start to find someone claiming to have seen her (but watch out, because it’s full of fantasists and fibbers).
Charlize Theron who doesn’t even have an arm and drives the truck, and with the stump arm honks the horn. And what am I supposed to go on saying? The spirit of the film I would say is summed up in that mechanical device mounted on Theron's handicap, flesh and metal glued to each other pulling a cable to emit an analog BROOOOOOOOOM from a gasoline-fed beast. Wanted to know if it’s a Mad Max faithful to the spirit? damn if it is faithful. After all, it's still by the same Miller, with a space shuttle full of dollars more at his disposal.
Dollars that were promptly spent in the most reckless and flamboyant way possible. Michael Bay is said to overdo it with the explosions. I think Miller disagrees, I believe the number of explosions in a Bay film cover the explosions in the first half of the first half of this movie. and the thing... IT'S INSANE! Because Miller directs everything with the spirit of one who wants to win by playing with quality yes, but above all with heart. There is no explosion for its own sake, it all is part of a larger choreography, an endless dance between the camera, special effects, color, and the viewer’s eye. 'This film is pure meta-dance. You sit and dance with it.
I could blow it up even bigger: it’s the film most similar to "The Raid" I have ever seen. The Raid is set in corridors a meter wide, this one in boundless spaces, in The Raid there are men barehanded punching each other, here there are burning Beetles and drag monsters (or whatever the heck those things are called with wheels as high as a storefront) jumping from one side to another. They shouldn’t have anything in common, yet they are the same thing: an action odyssey held up for a tenth by choreographic ideas (some actually hilarious, the marionette on guitar will make you spend four or five euros more on popcorn), and for the remaining nine-tenths by the perfect harmony between choreography and everything around it.
Is it a huge music video? maybe, surely you are used to seeing freaking awesome music videos if this seems like a music video to you. And, do me a favor: pass me a few (music videos as effective as the film in question, that runs for two hours, not four minutes).
And so, to answer the question "Did you like the film?":
Look, I watched it yesterday, and I have to admit that to fully enjoy it, or at least to be able to express a more pondered judgment, it would be necessary to also see the 3D version (before Gravity I was doubtful about this stuff, then indeed I saw Gravity, and if you haven't seen it in 3D you're on your own, you have no idea what I'm talking about and I don’t have the means from here to explain). So I was saying well, actually I saw it yesterday but in 2D. I can’t really tell if it’s a fantastic marvel or not. but I can tell you that I’m trying to organize to go watch it again now in 3D. at €10.50.
€18.50 in two days for the same film.
Yes, come on, all in all I can tell you that I kind of liked the film. careful though, out there it’s full of people who in front of such a film could not go beyond the concept of "garbage" (all people to whom it should be pointed out that outside the theaters there’s written "mad max", not "youth").
I've never been a big fan of Mad Max.
The first one I saw only once at the age of ten on the sofa between mom and dad. To the left, my mother who said every five minutes: "but popcorn is small he can’t watch this stuff, change the channel" and my father showed a total disregard of his role assigned by mother nature, shrugged it off. I left terrified and alienated, today I only remember a guy whose wife and child were slaughtered, tied with a chain to the fender of a car and taken up and down the deserts of Australia. Oh, I also remember that it had nothing post-apocalyptic about it.
Then there’s the second one which is a whole different story. That is a badass movie. Too bad that on TV it was aired like "never," and I had to wait to be able to rent the VHS down here to see it. Which then "down here" up to a certain point, because then "down here" they started making pizza and falafel, and goodbye to old films which now I have to walk a long way to find on foot. Anyway, great story Mad Max 2 (I avoid the English titles, it risks creating a mess with few precedents, evil dead is nothing compared) Mad Max 2 is the world of Ken Shiro, including violence, before Ken Shiro. And with cars instead of Okuto. A lot of explosions basically.
In the third Mad Max, there's Tina Turner, kids who seem like the underfed and depressed cousins of the lost boys from "Hook", Master Blaster, the desert of Ken Shiro, a lot more money, and a lot less violence.
I must have seen it a dozen times and I don’t remember anything else, because: I'm not a Mad Max fan and I'm not a Miller fan either. Sure, I know that you’re smart and prepared and you think you can fool me and come to say "come on pop, The Witches of Eastwick is a comedy you can’t not like." Here, good, I know you know things, but did you know that his last work before Fury Road was "Happy Feet 2"? and before that it was "Happy Feet 1"? and before even that it was "Babe: Pig in the City"?
Eh, hard to believe right?
Anyway, what the hell did I go to the cinema for yesterday, then?
Nothing, it's just that for about six months these two minutes have been circulating online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoYlqdBtRSw and I am a romantic type.
How's the movie? Flashy as the trailer, absurd as the trailer, violent as the trailer, "original" as the trailer. It's basically that stuff for two hours.
So: the plot is zero, content you won’t find even if you dig hard enough, whereas halfway through the movie you'll find an adrenaline enema stuck in your butt (unless you are one of those people who are so boring and with interjecting "but this movie is all special effects." which besides being a boring phrase also serves as a counterpoint to the historical "electronic music is not music because the computer does it all" and whether you like it or not it’s been trash for years. It’s better if you avoid bringing it up because it really stinks.
The movie is a triumph of "stuff to see". Wide, very wide shots, always or almost always wide-angle, meticulous attention to the details of the sets (oh my, I don’t know if cars can usually be considered sets, here actually they are practically the entire set). The color correction work is magnificent, a breathtaking deep blue, a chase between wind and sand RED, but what the heck, you have to see how red that brown is, I mean: it's brown, but it's red! ... and how the heck can I explain it in words. well, there’s always the previous trailer above...
Miller focuses everything on the aesthetics, redesigns the character of Max on the hyper-muscles of Tom Hardy, the one that if he stays silent the whole film is a genius, if he talks the whole film on the cell phone is a genius, if he wears the mask the whole film is a genius. In short, Tom Hardy, the guy who can act. And he is the most taciturn Max ever, disillusioned and disenchanted, like the old Max, only here there’s someone who lets you understand it with his face and there’s no need for a voice-over to tell you what kind of guy he is. As mentioned, the focus is entirely on the aesthetics, and: BOOM! it’s not that it's particularly interested in the chicks in the film, however, there are five or six led by the one that appears the most ordinary of them all. Charlize Theron. That, usually, Charlize and the bathroom are two corridors, three salons, a kitchen, a guest room, the leisure wing, the stables, the riding arena, the clay pigeon-shooting park away, and then maybe (maybe) you might start to find someone claiming to have seen her (but watch out, because it’s full of fantasists and fibbers).
Charlize Theron who doesn’t even have an arm and drives the truck, and with the stump arm honks the horn. And what am I supposed to go on saying? The spirit of the film I would say is summed up in that mechanical device mounted on Theron's handicap, flesh and metal glued to each other pulling a cable to emit an analog BROOOOOOOOOM from a gasoline-fed beast. Wanted to know if it’s a Mad Max faithful to the spirit? damn if it is faithful. After all, it's still by the same Miller, with a space shuttle full of dollars more at his disposal.
Dollars that were promptly spent in the most reckless and flamboyant way possible. Michael Bay is said to overdo it with the explosions. I think Miller disagrees, I believe the number of explosions in a Bay film cover the explosions in the first half of the first half of this movie. and the thing... IT'S INSANE! Because Miller directs everything with the spirit of one who wants to win by playing with quality yes, but above all with heart. There is no explosion for its own sake, it all is part of a larger choreography, an endless dance between the camera, special effects, color, and the viewer’s eye. 'This film is pure meta-dance. You sit and dance with it.
I could blow it up even bigger: it’s the film most similar to "The Raid" I have ever seen. The Raid is set in corridors a meter wide, this one in boundless spaces, in The Raid there are men barehanded punching each other, here there are burning Beetles and drag monsters (or whatever the heck those things are called with wheels as high as a storefront) jumping from one side to another. They shouldn’t have anything in common, yet they are the same thing: an action odyssey held up for a tenth by choreographic ideas (some actually hilarious, the marionette on guitar will make you spend four or five euros more on popcorn), and for the remaining nine-tenths by the perfect harmony between choreography and everything around it.
Is it a huge music video? maybe, surely you are used to seeing freaking awesome music videos if this seems like a music video to you. And, do me a favor: pass me a few (music videos as effective as the film in question, that runs for two hours, not four minutes).
And so, to answer the question "Did you like the film?":
Look, I watched it yesterday, and I have to admit that to fully enjoy it, or at least to be able to express a more pondered judgment, it would be necessary to also see the 3D version (before Gravity I was doubtful about this stuff, then indeed I saw Gravity, and if you haven't seen it in 3D you're on your own, you have no idea what I'm talking about and I don’t have the means from here to explain). So I was saying well, actually I saw it yesterday but in 2D. I can’t really tell if it’s a fantastic marvel or not. but I can tell you that I’m trying to organize to go watch it again now in 3D. at €10.50.
€18.50 in two days for the same film.
Yes, come on, all in all I can tell you that I kind of liked the film. careful though, out there it’s full of people who in front of such a film could not go beyond the concept of "garbage" (all people to whom it should be pointed out that outside the theaters there’s written "mad max", not "youth").
Loading comments slowly