ilovefuzz.com

jwar wrote:You guys are all haters!! Haters!!!

your avatar is broken, did you know that?

It is?? I see it?

jwar wrote:It is?? I see it?

NO youve been naked for weeks!!

It's been pretty annoying.

Well I don't know why it's like that?? Wtf.

rustywire wrote: @Elvind

NSFW: show

Love Beyond Thunderdome, I know most fans of the original & RW feel some kinda way about it.
You don't see me holding grudges & crying how they're idiots.

To sum up my IMOs:
Beyond Thunderdome was very Hollywood, a tall tree with much low-hanging fruit. It still had charm and nuance as integral as the graphic action.
BT had a particularly interesting, dark sub-narrative, the contrast between extreme examples of imperialist and socialist societies, with a broader focus on themes of anthropology and sociology. Its dirty aesthetic feels dirty.

FR strives to be a caricature of everything very Hollywood in BT, while replacing the tree with a fancily decorated, small plastic palm.
In the FR footage I haven't seen...is there any sub-narrative other than "tyrant bad, slavery bad, for women in particular, fight the power!"
Its dirty aesthetic reeks of "too pretty"

But never mind all that, this is the question that matters

I get your point. It actually struck me that I might dislike BT because of how close it is to eighties culture, which might cloud my opinion. The first two felt more timeless, you dig? Maybe your dislike of the new one is similar, i.e. you feel more distance to this modern craziness?

Dunno, and it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just a fun, stupid movie like Pacific Rim or Die Hard.

Speaking of Pacific Rim, caught the tail end last night, came in right at "Let's do this! Together!"
Heard this:
[youtube][/youtube]

Eivind August wrote:

rustywire wrote: @Elvind

NSFW: show

Love Beyond Thunderdome, I know most fans of the original & RW feel some kinda way about it.
You don't see me holding grudges & crying how they're idiots.

To sum up my IMOs:
Beyond Thunderdome was very Hollywood, a tall tree with much low-hanging fruit. It still had charm and nuance as integral as the graphic action.
BT had a particularly interesting, dark sub-narrative, the contrast between extreme examples of imperialist and socialist societies, with a broader focus on themes of anthropology and sociology. Its dirty aesthetic feels dirty.

FR strives to be a caricature of everything very Hollywood in BT, while replacing the tree with a fancily decorated, small plastic palm.
In the FR footage I haven't seen...is there any sub-narrative other than "tyrant bad, slavery bad, for women in particular, fight the power!"
Its dirty aesthetic reeks of "too pretty"

But never mind all that, this is the question that matters

I get your point. It actually struck me that I might dislike BT because of how close it is to eighties culture, which might cloud my opinion. The first two felt more timeless, you dig? Maybe your dislike of the new one is similar, i.e. you feel more distance to this modern craziness?

Dunno, and it doesn't really matter anyway. It's just a fun, stupid movie like Pacific Rim or Die Hard.

Wasn't at all curious to see anything in Pacific Rim...or San Andreas...so idk how they compare but Die Hard? IDK there's a lot of subtlety, valleys & peaks. It doesn't at all feel like its overreaching.
I would sooner contrast The 5th Element, which has considerable overlap in its core principles; with a story full of visually stunning caricature/hyperbole/in-yo-face aesthetic as fun as it gets. There's still depth among numerous single-trait characters (and no shortage of amusing dialogue). Its brilliantly dumb, with a storyline full of wtf (and I still adore it).

My dislike of the new (MM) is in a nutshell, a fundamental dislike of *hollywood-trying-too-hard* at being extremely "safe" and lazy.

Eivind August wrote: It's just a fun, stupid movie like Die Hard.

(RIP)

Yeah, The Fifth Element might be a better comparison, though without any Chris Tucker-level annoyingness.

Eivind August wrote:

Yeah, The Fifth Element might be a better comparison, though without any Chris Tucker-level annoyingness.

wow! really wtf! why the hell wasn't Chris Tucker in this movie? the world just sucks sometimes

Blackened Soul wrote:

Eivind August wrote:

Yeah, The Fifth Element might be a better comparison, though without any Chris Tucker-level annoyingness.

wow! really wtf! why the hell wasn't Chris Tucker in this movie? the world just sucks sometimes

Oh man, imagine him as an even more hyperactive war boy.

OK I've watched it twice now on HBO, to the end.
So much wtf and idgi. I'm going to give it a 3rd go to see if I'm still missing something.
A lot of stuff isn't very well explained or even...logical in context.
If the *wives* were so precious how tf did Furiosa smuggle them out of a freakin elevated bank vault, down the lift-system into the war machine, stories below unnoticed?
Are they leaving all the details for a spinoff & origin movie?

I think MM:FR is inherently better suited as a video game than a movie. Infinitely more fun.
The movie feels like it was based on a post-apoc game taking place in the MM universe more than having anything to do with the first 3 Mad Max stories or characters.
There are a lot of nice shots, visually...without cgi. There are some really good ones with cgi too.
But that *desert storm* scene gtfoh.
This is a movie where I'm talking shit about it most of the way through, yet having fun doing so.
The dialogue is insufferable. Could have worked as a silent film.
MST3K type overdub makes it better.
Biggest gripe is not enough pointless war drum & flamethrowing guitar/amp vehicle participation. That alone should have been a solid 10 minutes of the movie.

5/10.
Weakest in the series. Still fun, I'll give it that.
But it's so painfully transparent-political & *preachy Hollywood*