The Mad Max Thread

[Silver Nemesis]

While I do enjoy these movies, I can't say Mad Max has ever been one of my favourite franchises. It wasn't part of my childhood and it never resonated with me on a personal level the way certain other films did. However, it is a classic movie series and the original trilogy stands as a landmark of Australian New Wave cinema, so I figure it warrants a thread.

To start the ball rolling, here are my thoughts on the four main movies.

MAD MAX (1979)

The first thing to note about the original Mad Max is that it's not post-apocalyptic. The franchise as a whole ranks along The Planet of the Apes series as one of the defining works of post-apocalyptic cinema, yet the first film doesn't fit that genre. Instead it's dystopian. Civilisation still exists in Mad Max, but it's on the brink of collapse. The war hasn't happened yet, but the Main Force Patrol is buckling under the onslaught of rising crime. In that sense, the first film has more in common with A Clockwork Orange or RoboCop than it does with conventional post-apocalyptic fiction.

It's often described as a revenge story, yet the revenge element doesn't come into play until the last twenty minutes. Throughout the preceding seventy minutes the focus drifts between Goose, Jessie and the villains, but seldom lingers on Max himself for very long. Not until the final act, when he finally takes centre stage. It's an unconventionally-structured film – linear, but not tightly trained on its eponymous character – and I chalk that up to it being a low-budget Ozploitation flick made by a rookie director. I'm willing to make allowances, however, since the end result, while rough around the edges, is still a classic action thriller. It's an impressive debut for both Miller and Gibson.

My favourite villain from the first film is Bubba Zanetti. He exudes a quieter and more sinister aura than the other OTT gang members, yet he's every bit as psychotic. His outfit resembles an MFP uniform, which has prompted some fans to speculate that he was formerly a cop like Max. This theory is further supported by his impressive marksmanship, which is best demonstrated when he kneecaps Max at long range. He messes Rockatansky up pretty badly during that scene, and Max bears the scars of Zanetti's assault in the sequels, most notably in the form of the leg brace he wears. I prefer the villains in Mad Max 2, but the bad guys in the first film are also memorable.

All of the Mad Max films proved influential on later works, and the first movie is no exception. The final scene between Max and Johnny the Boy was referenced (or ripped off, if you'd prefer) by Alan Moore in the sixth chapter of Watchmen, and that scene also inspired the gruesome finale of James Wan's Saw (2004). Director Jonathan Hensleigh cited the first Mad Max as an influence on the 2004 Punisher movie, and Kurt Russell credits it with inspiring him to make Escape from New York (1981). So the movie's legacy is significant.

Those seeking the glossy post-apocalyptic spectacle of the sequels might be disappointed by the first entry in the series. But what the original lacks in scale it makes up for with intensity and impressive stunts. The fact Miller achieved this on such a comparatively small budget makes it all the more impressive. It's a good film. Check it out.

MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR (1981)

This is the best entry in the series and one of the greatest action movies of the eighties. The Road Warrior takes everything that worked about the first film – the impressive stunts, the grittiness, the vehicular action, the creativity – and perfects it. This is the first Mad Max film to truly feel post-apocalyptic, and the bigger budget allows for a more fully realised futuristic vision steeped in Mohawks, gasoline and the blood-drenched sand of the Outback. The Road Warrior pretty much defined the aesthetic of the entire post-apocalyptic genre. Yes, there were earlier films like Planet of the Apes (1968) and A Boy and His Dog (1975), but Mad Max 2 established a distinctive look that all later movies in the genre aspired to imitate.

The plot is essentially a post-apocalyptic retelling of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo (1961): a taciturn lone warrior wanders into the middle of a feud between two rival factions, decides to insert himself into the conflict for mercenary reasons, gets badly wounded by one side, then develops a personal investment in the war's outcome that prompts him to help one group overcome the other. It's the same basic plot as A Fistful of Dollars (1964), Django (1966), The Warrior and the Sorceress (1983) and Last Man Standing (1996). The Road Warrior's influence can in turn be seen in practically every subsequent post-apocalyptic story, from Fist of the North Star to the Fallout games.

Max's character arc picks up where the last film left off. He's a broken man, mentally, spiritually and emotionally, wandering the wasteland battling marauders for the sole purpose of self-preservation. He doesn't care about anyone. He doesn't help the people of the refinery out of compassion, but because he wants something in return. First chance he gets, he tries to run out on them. He only drives the tanker during the finale because it's his best bet at survival. Yet there are hints of his humanity resurfacing, most notably during his interactions with the Feral Kid. Max's protectiveness towards children propels his character arc further in the next movie, and foreshadowing of that change can be glimpsed in The Road Warrior.

I rank the villains in Max Mad 2 as the best in the franchise. Lord Humungus is pretty close to what my ideal live action depiction of Bane would be like. Nowadays Jason Vorhees is the movie villain most associated with hockey masks. But while Jason debuted in 1980 – one year before Humungus – it's worth remembering that he didn't actually don a hockey mask until the third film in the series, which came out one year after The Road Warrior. So Humungus cornered the look first.

My only real criticism of Mad Max 2 is the sequences where Miller under-cranks the camera to speed up the footage. Those shots look unintentionally comic and haven't aged well. I've also never liked the bit where Humungus kills Pappagallo by throwing a spear into his back. Pappagallo was sitting in a fast-moving vehicle with his back against the seat. How did the spear hit him in the back? It would have been better if Humungus had thrown the spear into the wheel of his vehicle, causing him to crash and die that way. But it's a minor point.

For me, The Road Warrior is where the franchise peaked. Recommended.

MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985)

This is generally regarded as the weakest instalment in the franchise, and it's not hard to see why. But I think it's all right. It does feel softer than the previous two films; it's glossier and less gritty, and the toning down of the violence is commensurate with an increase in humour. But it's still a good film. It certainly doesn't deserve to be lumped together with RoboCop 3 or Terminator 3, as some fans assert. It's the only film in the series that wasn't solely directed by George Miller, as this time he was assisted by co-director George Ogilvie. Perhaps that's why the tone is lighter than the other films.

The story is organised in a neat three-act structure: the opening act focuses on the Bartertown conflict between Aunty and Master Blaster, the second act focuses on the tribe of lost kids, and the final act is where the two narratives converge for the spectacular finale. The last twenty minutes of the movie is the only vehicular sequence in the film, and this might disappoint gearheads hungry for car chases and stunts on a par with the previous two movies. Still, the one vehicular action scene is impressive and well executed. The rest of the film's action takes the form of fight scenes and gunplay, with the duel in the Thunderdome being a particularly creative and well choreographed set piece.

The main criticism most viewers level against this film, besides the violence being toned down for a PG-13 rating, is the storyline focusing on the kids. I have to concur that this is the least interesting part of the film. The plot grinds to a halt for about twenty minutes while Max tarries with the children. Things pick up again when he returns to Bartertown, but the middle act is a drag. The idea behind the tribe of kids waiting for an adult to deliver them is interesting and the location photography and production design for the oasis are pleasant (I suspect those scenes influenced Spielberg's depiction of the Lost Boys in Hook), but it just takes up too much time in an otherwise pacy movie.

The villains also aren't as intimidating as those from the other films, though I do like Tina Turner's performance as Aunty and Angelo Rossitto as Blaster Master. The latter isn't really a villain at all, though he serves an antagonistic role during the opening act. The idea of Max forming an alliance with a former adversary is something we didn't see in the earlier films (unless you count the Gyro Captain), and Turner's Aunty is an alluring departure from the more psychotic macho villains of Mad Max 1 and 2. I also like the songs she contributed to the soundtrack.

Speaking of music, this was the first Mad Max film not to be scored by Brian May. Instead French composer Maurice Jarre wrote the score, and he noticeably references his earlier work on Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977). All in all, it's the slickest and most polished of the original trilogy, at least on a technical level. But the trade-off is that it lacks the grittiness and edge of its predecessors.

Bottom line, Beyond Thunderdome has a good first and final act but drags in the middle. The lack of R-rated violence and vehicular action might disappoint some, but I think it's a decent film overall. Not as good as the first two, but still a satisfying conclusion to the original trilogy.

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD (2015)

Am I the only person who doesn't love this movie?

Fury Road won six Academy Awards and was even nominated for 'Best Picture'. I mean, it's good but it's not that good. Many people say it's the best in the series. I don't agree with that. It's the glossiest of the movies, and Miller obviously had plenty of time to get the script and story right. But it lacks the grittiness and grounded sensibility that were a big part of what made the first two films so compelling for me.

There are lots of articles online emphasising the use of practical stunts, but there's still a lot of CGI in the finished product. It might well be the case that most of the stunts were done practically, but a lot of it still looks computer animated in the final film. Because of this the action scenes lack the bone-breaking impact that made the stunts so impressive in the earlier movies, like when the guy gets hit in the head by his own bike in Mad Max 1, or when that gang member goes spinning through the air in The Road Warrior. You've also got to assess these films in the context of when they were made, and Mad Max 1 and 2 were simply more significant contributions to Australian cinema IMHO.

That's not to say that Fury Road is bad. On the contrary, I think it's a good action movie. I just think it's overrated and lacking some of the spark that the earlier films had. Maybe it's the absence of Gibson. Tom Hardy's fine in the role. He doesn't just imitate Mel, but instead builds his own version of Max from the ground up and makes the part his own. I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job... except Mel. How cool would it have been to have had an older grizzled version of Gibson's Max return?

That would have made it feel less disconnected from the earlier films. But again, I'm not knocking Hardy. If they had to recast, I'm not sure they could've picked anyone better.

I've never liked Charlize Theron, but Furiosa is a strong protagonist. It's really her story, with Max merely acting as a helper. Immortan Joe is a decent villain, though I think his appearance is more compelling than his personality. It was an interesting casting choice to have him be played by Hugh Keays-Byrne, who played Toecutter in the first Mad Max movie. Immortan Joe looks cooler, but I find Toecutter to be more entertaining and psychotic.

One other quibble I have with Fury Road is that it was shot in South Africa. I feel like Mad Max movies should really be shot in Australia, though this is admittedly an ungracious criticism – the South African scenery is breathtaking and the story does a good job incorporating the landscape into the action. So I can't really complain about it. The cinematography is generally good, though the orange and blue palette looks oversaturated at times. And again, the visuals just lack the grit of the classic trilogy.

Fury Road is a good film. I just don't think it's the masterpiece some people claim, or that it's better than The Road Warrior. But that's just my take. It's still a decent addition to the franchise.

So those are my thoughts on the franchise. My ranking of the films, from favourite to least favourite, would look like this:

1.    Road Warrior
2.    Mad Max
3.    Beyond Thunderdome
4.    Fury Road

What does everyone else think about Mad Max? Which is your favourite film in the series? How would you rank them? Did anyone see the Furiosa prequel, and if so is it any good?

[Kamdan]

Am I the only person who doesn't love this movie?

I thought I was the only one who didn't love it. I figured it was due to me overhyping Fury Road when it first came out by watching the first two before going in.

The whole George Miller unrestrained feeling felt just like when George Lucas felt unbridled to his vision for the Star Wars prequels. It seemed like everything I loved about the films were ignored for this new film. I never needed to see someone bite the head off of a two-headed lizard or flames shoot out of a guitar in a world where gas is supposedly a precious commodity.

It was also rather unintentionally comical to see Immortan Joe unleash all of that water to everyone with flat pans attempting to collect it, along with the women being rather wasteful with it posing for a wet t-shirt contest. It also frustrated me to see them stupidly place a mask over Hugh Keays-Byrne'a highly expressive face. The few traces of plot reminded me of National Lampoon's Vacation where the quest for the Green Place turns out to be a lost cause.

It might well be the case that most of the stunts were done practically, but a lot of it still looks computer animated in the final film. Because of this the action scenes lack the bone-breaking impact that made the stunts so impressive in the earlier movies, like when the guy gets hit in the head by his own bike in Mad Max 1, or when that gang member goes spinning through the air in The Road Warrior. You've also got to assess these films in the context of when they were made, and Mad Max 1 and 2 were simply more significant contributions to Australian cinema IMHO.

After seeing Furiosa this summer, I have a greater affinity for Fury Road looking much more realistic looking than Furiosa's obvious use of green screen. This was highly obvious when Furiosa ended with scenes from Fury Road. It is a shame when amazing practical effects like the ones in Fury Road get diluted with CGI add-ins and the yucky color pallet.

I often feel terrible praising the stunt work in these films, because they unfortunately caused a lot of pain for those who suffered from them. That's exactly why you won't see something like that with today's films so it shouldn't be considered a detriment to films today for wanting to avoid serious accidents or long term injuries. For example, they can't fly actors playing Superman like they did for Christopher Reeve anymore due to the back problems he later suffered from. It may look better, but it all comes at a price.

[Silver Nemesis]

The George Lucas analogy is apt. I'd also cite another George – George A. Romero – as a further example of the same thing. In all three cases the Georges made a classic film trilogy, then had a long time to develop the fourth entry. The Georges clearly amassed many, many ideas during that time and ended up cramming them all into the fourth film. They also clearly had more money and creative control on the fourth movie, and in each instance the result, for me at least, lost something that had made the previous three films feel special.

I never needed to see someone bite the head off of a two-headed lizard or flames shoot out of a guitar in a world where gas is supposedly a precious commodity.

The availability of gasoline and munitions in Fury Road does feel inconsistent with the earlier movies. Bullets and shotgun shells were scarce in The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome. Most people were down to using crossbows and spear guns. Humungus's warlord status was symbolised by the Smith & Wesson Model 29 he wielded, and even then he only had five rounds left.

Compare that with Fury Road, where everyone seems to have a firearm, machine guns are commonplace and the villains are shown casually shooting bullets into the sky as though they have a limitless supply. They don't seem all that bothered about conserving fuel either. It's like a different world, which lends credence to the theory that it's a hard reboot rather than a sequel.

I often feel terrible praising the stunt work in these films, because they unfortunately caused a lot of pain for those who suffered from them. That's exactly why you won't see something like that with today's films so it shouldn't be considered a detriment to films today for wanting to avoid serious accidents or long term injuries. For example, they can't fly actors playing Superman like they did for Christopher Reeve anymore due to the back problems he later suffered from. It may look better, but it all comes at a price.

I know what you mean about the guilt thing. The stunts in the old films look amazing, but you can't help wondering what kind of injuries the performers sustained. Take this shot for example.

That's got to be the single most impressive stunt in The Road Warrior, yet the stuntman in question apparently broke both legs performing it. Then there's this stunt from the first movie.

For years there was an urban legend that stuntman Dale Bensch died when the bike hit him on the head, but thankfully Bensch himself is still around to dispel that rumour.

As to the matter of CGI, you're not the first person I've heard say that it's used excessively in Furiosa. If that's the case, then there's another parallel between Lucas and Miller.