All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
A masterpiece. Not an action masterpiece, or a genre masterpiece, but a true work of art and a masterpiece of film. That's all I can say. See this is in the biggest, loudest theatre that you can, or you will be very sorry.
I'm on the fence with this one. I loved the original films. The whole concept appeals to me so it's easy for me to like. I just feel they chose Mad Max rather than a new apocalyptic hero because of marketing reasons, so money gets in the way. I'll wait for this one to hit the small screen.
I am looking forward to watching The Krays though, can't remember the actual title. I may go to the cinema to watch that.
Amazing. The best action film I've ever seen. Holy shit, I still can't believe how good this was. Believe the hype and see this on the big screen. You will not be disappointed.
I'm on the fence with this one. I loved the original films. The whole concept appeals to me so it's easy for me to like. I just feel they chose Mad Max rather than a new apocalyptic hero because of marketing reasons, so money gets in the way. I'll wait for this one to hit the small screen.
I am looking forward to watching The Krays though, can't remember the actual title. I may go to the cinema to watch that.
Krays flick is called Legend.
As for this 'new mad max' film, as I stated once before, will be staying right away from it (not that I go to the cinema anyway). The old Mad Max movies, especially number 2 are too close to my Aussie heart to be diluted by this faux one.
I'll probably end up seeing it, but I agree with Stevie. The quintessential Mad Max is Mel Gibson for me. Not saying this current incarnation isn't a good movie in its own right but it doesn't have much bearing on the original imh.
I'll probably end up seeing it, but I agree with Stevie. The quintessential Mad Max is Mel Gibson for me. Not saying this current incarnation isn't a good movie in its own right but it doesn't have much bearing on the original imh.
It's a shame about Mel. He's still a bloody good actor and director. There's a joke Frankie Boyle told about him not being Scottish enough to play William Wallace. You'll have to look up the punchline if you want it. He tells it much better than I do.
I might see this movie. It does look good. Hard to believe it's by the same guy who made Babe. I'm not sure the glowing reviews are as spot on as they claim.
But it does have Tom Hardy in it. That's a good as reason as any to watch it. He's about as good it gets these days.
Kermode is someone I usually agree with. On most things at least...
Just watched it, insane movie, completely blew me away! Agree with OP, see it on the biggest screen you can with best sound available - Dustin, don't wait for small screen, you'll miss out imho
I honestly can't believe people wouldn't want to see this film on the big screen (especially if you're a fan of the "original" trilogy). And all I can say is your loss. And if you're an aussie, then you should support your fellow Australian filmmaker. I'm just baffled by some of these responses. God forbid someone builds on their own universe (which belongs to George Miller and not you) and it's actually good.
Okay, rant over. See this movie. Honestly, it's one of the most bad ass films I've ever seen. Miller (who also wrote/directed Babe: Pig in the City) is in top form. And the man is fucking 70 years old. What other cult film director has that kind of longevity?
The old Mad Max movies, especially number 2 are too close to my Aussie heart to be diluted by this faux one.
I admit I can't boast the Aussie heart, but I grew up with all three on repeat (well, rewind), for what it's worth, and still loved this one.
And no fair calling it faux! Miller's still writing/producing/directing. Immortan Joe is played by Toecutter. Co-writer Nick Lathouris was in Mad Max. Doug Mitchell also produced on Thunderdome.
Tom Hardy's a great actor, but definitely no Mel Gibson. There was no hope of playing a Max "as good" as Mel's original. Luckily though, this is a different film and isn't hurt at all by a different Max (improbably, I'm pretty sure Hardy speaks even less than Mel does in Road Warrior).
If you didn't grow up in Australia and saw Mad Max 2 at the drive-in as an 18 year old, and drove home at top speed, then you have no idea what this film means to us.
At the least, they could've had Hemsworth or even High Jackman playing Max AND filmed it here in Oz ( the original locations of the old films are still visited by tourists outback).
Even though Thunderdome was not as good as The Road Warrior - and I haven't seen it for years - it still has that mystical quality at the end when Max disappears into the wilderness. His char is almost similar to one of Clint Eastwood's Western dudes, the Man with No Name etc.
I was also hesitant about the idea of a re-boot (or whatever this is supposed to be), but this feels like it fits solidly into Max's universe. Even if it is a different guy. And he only has about 10 lines of dialogue, anyway.
Make no mistake. This is a work of art, both beautiful and terrifying, often at the same time. Do not overlook the soundtrack, that pairs with the action wonderfully to form a seamless, epic whole. This is the kind of story that movies were invented for. Sound and vision and fury.
Light on the CGI, heavy on actual stunt work. And it is such a pleasure to watch action that is shot with care -- you can actually follow what is going on, instead of some amateur wildly shaking the camera as if that, in and of itself, is supposed to generate excitement.
If you enjoy action films, and if you enjoyed the original Max films (particularly 2, which is this film's bastard cousin), you are going to be sorry later while watching this in your living room, wishing you had sprung for that ticket.
All you Mad Max fans who don't want to see this. WTF!? I just don't get it. I grew up with the original trilogy and The Road Warrior is one of my all time favorite films. Fury Road is the absolute best of the Mad Max films. Even without Mel, this movie has more heart and more face melting awesomeness than any action film I've ever seen. If you don't see it on the big screen, it's your loss.
Never cared for the original Mad Max movies. Always thought they were lame and super overrated. Especially the 3rd one that was garbage.
I will check this out. Looks loud, the kind of spectacle movie that's worth seeing in a theater.
PS: Also was surprised to see this movie come in second this weekend in the US to Pitch Perfect 2! With 26 mil less. With an opening of 44 mil, it has to be considered a disappointment for the US market.
I thought it was Okay. From the trailer I felt like this movie will be somehow bigger in scope, but it felt kind of contained to me. Also, it seemed too similar to the second one.
There's really no story here, not that it needs much. Still, it felt a bit empty to me.
Have to respect the stunt work no matter what you think of the movie itself. Can only imagine the amount of effort that went into it.
While I don't think the movie was great, I can see a lot of people liking it and having fun watching it. For me it covered too much of the same ground like the second one.
Insanely good production design, if a little theatrical...but not much else to recommend.
Hardy was awful as Mad Max. A complete charisma void.
I was afraid of this. I'll say it again, Mel Gibson is Mad Max and had, (still does, really) charisma in spades. And I'm a fan of Hardy - he was terrific in Locke. I don't doubt George Miller made this look good but that won't be enough to get me into the cinema.
Hardy plays gangsters the best. It's all that crack he smoked. Looking forward to Legend, or whatever the new Kray film is called.
I hated Locke and couldn't even watch it. I watched half an hour, realised it was just going to be chatting shit in a car (with a Welsh accent) and turned it off. I thought that Locke was a terrible film. Especially for a feature. But I'm not much of a fan of containment. Not on that sort of level anyway.
I was afraid of this. I'll say it again, Mel Gibson is Mad Max and had, (still does, really) charisma in spades. And I'm a fan of Hardy - he was terrific in Locke. I don't doubt George Miller made this look good but that won't be enough to get me into the cinema.
I'd give it a go. Others liked it and we've disagreed before.
I'm someone who needs a bit of depth in films. I get bored very quickly when it is just boom bash.
I also liked the one where he played a redneck moonshiner. He's well suited to those kind of roles, despite being born with quite the silver spoon in his chops. I think he always associated better with the bad boys though, or maybe it was just the crack.
To me The Drop is the type of movie that I would catch on TV, watch, and won't regret doing it. But I wouldn't go out of my way to see.
Well, I caught it on Netflix... just like Locke, which is why I turned it off after half an hour. There aren't many films I go out of my way to see. I did go out of my way to watch Interstellar and was only mildly disappointed, for the main though, I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
I tried to watch Mad Max last night and couldn't finish it. It was boring. The first five minutes were good, then it got repetitive. The best acting that I could see was from Charlize. Otherwise the performances were dire and the script writing extremely poor.
Thinking about this some more... this is probably the worst film I've tried to watch all year. I actually enjoyed watching Full English Breakfast more, at least I got to laugh at the tragic attempt at filmmaking.
This was just terrible. No story at all to speak of that I could fathom. The logic around Peter Stringfellow controlling all of these people I found extremely difficult to swallow. A cardboard cut out for a villain and mindless subordinates. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Considering gasoline is an important resource there, they didn't seem to mind burning as much of it as they could. The thing with the guitar also burning fuel was silly. Yes, it looked good, but isn't logical.
For me, this was actually worse than watching Fast and Furious 7... with that at least we expect cheese and cardboard cut out characters and can even get a chuckle out of the absurdity of it all. This was meant to be taken seriously and that's just sad.
I tried to watch Mad Max last night and couldn't finish it. It was boring. The first five minutes were good, then it got repetitive. The best acting that I could see was from Charlize. Otherwise the performances were dire and the script writing extremely poor.
Not one for me.
Agreed.
Spoilers Below:
All that happens is that they drive a truck a little bit down the road, then drive it back. That is literally the whole plot.
I bought a ticket from some rep and the bouncers were being funny about letting me in because it was just a bit of paper with writing on it. The lads in front of me said "It's alright we're going VIP with Peter Stringfellow, you can come with us".
I thought they were joking but he turned up and took us all in. .
Wow, that was underwhelming. Saw the glowing reviews and was looking forward to this one. If ever a "meh" was appropriate this would be that instant. What a ridiculous plot this movie has. Very disappointing. Maybe it's me, maybe I'm getting too old but I could just not get into the whole Mad Max universe. I don't know, it just seems stupid.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
If you think the plot revolves around a truck down a road and back again, you're sorely mistaken. If you paid attention and broke down the film, you would realize that there's much more to it. Miller doesn't spell anything out. It's the epitome of showing, not telling.
In all honesty, I didn't get what was fully going on until my 3rd/4th viewing. But if you take the time to really examine and study the movie, you'll get much more out of it.
If you think the plot revolves around a truck down a road and back again, you're sorely mistaken. If you paid attention and broke down the film, you would realize that there's much more to it. Miller doesn't spell anything out. It's the epitome of showing, not telling.
In all honesty, I didn't get what was fully going on until my 3rd/4th viewing. But if you take the time to really examine and study the movie, you'll get much more out of it.
Well you've seen it at least 4 times... and rather than spell anything out you simply tell us it has plot. If it has depth, then what is it?
If you think the plot revolves around a truck down a road and back again, you're sorely mistaken. If you paid attention and broke down the film, you would realize that there's much more to it. Miller doesn't spell anything out. It's the epitome of showing, not telling.
I seriously remember an interview at the beginning of the year, where George Miller said himself that the movie basically has no plot. It's a chase movie.
If you think the plot revolves around a truck down a road and back again, you're sorely mistaken. If you paid attention and broke down the film, you would realize that there's much more to it. Miller doesn't spell anything out. It's the epitome of showing, not telling.
In all honesty, I didn't get what was fully going on until my 3rd/4th viewing. But if you take the time to really examine and study the movie, you'll get much more out of it.
Sorry, fella.
That's all that happens. They drive a truck out of the Citadel. Get chased. Then decide to drive it back.
I saw this at the theater. I dug it. I never, for one second, tried to read more into it than a straight up chase. I didn't need some half-ass character backstory that always interrupts these adrenaline rides. I needed no more motivation from Max than self preservation. Furiosa (ridiculous name especially with this title) mildly has some motive to save the half naked baby mamas.
I think it's interesting, that writers seem half and half on this film. People who are thirsty for plot and dialogue ideas. Almost sounds like some forgot how to have fun at the movies.
Great stunts. Fantastic film work. Money well spent.
One man's adrenaline ride is another's long coach ride of snooze.
We all have emotional responses to things. If we like them we'll look for the reasons, if we don't we'll also look for reasons.
I was hoping for the film to end because I was bored and ultimately it's because I had no empathy for any of the characters or any interest in anything they were trying to do, so the whole thing fell flat for me. All the stunts and over the top acting just highlighted the lack of the basics, rather than overcoming them.
I did read more into this film because I'd never read any of the reviews before watching it and this is Mad Max. I expected more, a lot more. I expected all of the spectacular stunts with an equally spectacular plot. What's wrong with delivering that on that kind of budget? It's only a well written script and some drama... even in a chase film that is possible.
I liked all of the Mad Max films, even number 3, Beyond Thunderdome with Tina Turner. I saw them as a kid and they were the greatest films I'd ever seen at the time.
I wanted this to be great. Was really looking forward to it. Wanted to like it... then, I just couldn't any more. I tried.
Just a quick question Rick, Dustin. If you watched Fury at the same age you saw the original, do you think you would dislike it as much?
There's a separation here between critics, who 96% of believe this is good cinema and I'm astounded by that. And half the writers I know hate it. Is it a separation between what directors think makes a good film verses writers? The public responded to this, and as hopeful screenwriters, film makers, a note needs to be taken here if you want your projects funded.
Miller wrote a next to nothing script. Straight to the trash if written by anyone on these boards. But he made a (IMO) great film of it.
Good point, well made, James. Though I can't speak for the film cause I haven't seen it yet.
I don't think Fast And Furious would present as that great a script either and I can think of quite a few other popcorn type films that on paper would have left a lot to be desired, but it speaks for itself how many people them. Maybe it is also an age thing - when we're no longer teenagers we're not as easily pleased. I know I can't read most of the books I read and enjoyed in my early twenties.
Of course there's also the fact George Miller has pretty much produced every film he's ever directed.
Mad Max: The Wasteland has recently been announced according to IMDB.
Just a quick question Rick, Dustin. If you watched Fury at the same age you saw the original, do you think you would dislike it as much?
There's a separation here between critics, who 96% of believe this is good cinema and I'm astounded by that. And half the writers I know hate it. Is it a separation between what directors think makes a good film verses writers? The public responded to this, and as hopeful screenwriters, film makers, a note needs to be taken here if you want your projects funded.
Miller wrote a next to nothing script. Straight to the trash if written by anyone on these boards. But he made a (IMO) great film of it.
James
The thing with the original Mad Max is that Mad Max was incredibly cool. It was edgy, violent and intense. This Mad Max was very boring and very camp.
So no, I wouldn't have liked it as a kid.
However I do think you have a point in general. There's a point when you've seen so many films, and read so many books that only the very best stuff interests you any more.
But even cliched stuff is not usually so boring. Fast and Furious wasn't boring. Captain America: Winter Soldier wasn't boring. It doesn't need to be major Art, but you need to care at least a little about proceedings and the characters.
Mad Max in the original was someone you cared about. He was a pursuit driver. He was charismatic. When his family got killed it was real, wrenching stuff. There was absolutely nothing in this film that I cared about.
In terms of the separation thing, whether it's about Director and Writers. I very much doubt it. Directors, in general, would be even more critical imo, it's so lacking in the basics. Major Producers maybe. They are comfortable with selling spectacle as it's something that money can buy and can be replicated.
That's always been the ideal Hollywood/Showbiz formula.
We know that Hollywood likes mindless action films based on pre-existing Intellectual Property. That's pretty much all cinema is these days. The only real note you can take is that you need to have a pre-existing world-wide phenomenon. It would encourage you to perhaps write a best selling novel or comic book, or to try and make a low budget film at the very worst.
You said yourself that if you wrote this script it would have been thrown in the bin. We are not going to get a £220M film made. Miller did because he made a low budget film, Mad Max, that became legendary and has continued to work in the Industry.
Critics are critics. They have their opinion. I honestly couldn't care what they say. Often the films they like disappear, and the ones they didn't become classics.
You can find reviews that for me are more realistic:
Just a quick question Rick, Dustin. If you watched Fury at the same age you saw the original, do you think you would dislike it as much?
I have four boys. 11, 10, 8 and 7... not one of them could watch it either.
This is Mad Max, not Fast and Furious. Fast and Furious has always been a cheesy joke and I only watched the last one because my kids wanted to watch it. This concept deserves so much more.
In my opinion, some critics are paid to give good reviews on certain films. I also believe the ratings are enhanced over at IMDb. When The Interview first came out it too received glowing reviews and was rated at almost 9 on IMDb. It's now a 6 or something.
Don't look at the critics, don't look at the IMDb ratings unless the film is almost a year old. IMO, they're there to force an opinion into your mind that you wouldn't otherwise have had.
...is meant to be taken seriously? A five year old puts a boomerang through someone's head and then back flips into a ditch when he could've easily just taken one step backwards. I was under the impression that these movies were always meant to be taken as hilariously over the top and unrealistic, but it knows it's camp so it's okay to laugh at it.
Was this ever really considered gritty? I don't think it's just the 80s. I'd consider Jaws and Alien to be grittier than this, and that's just based on those movies not being ridiculous and excessive. Honestly, this one seems to be right in line with the series as far as being tongue-in-cheek camp. I laughed at it because it wanted me to. It asked me to turn my brain off, and then gave me some things to think about anyway.
"Upon its release, the film polarised critics. In a 1979 review, the Australian social commentator and film producer Phillip Adams condemned Mad Max, saying that it had "all the emotional uplift of Mein Kampf" and would be "a special favourite of rapists, sadists, child murderers and incipient [Charles] Mansons"
That was really what made it so legendary, imo.
The rest are a bit silly. Mad Max 2 was fun though, in a way that Fury Road failed to be. Beyond the Thunderdome was not much cop, either imo.
Alien... was a great film, way better than Mad Max, IMO. I saw that as a kid too and it gave me some shocks, man, seeing that alien burst through the chest. Epic. Never got along with the rubber Jaws shark though. Even as a kid that would crack me up and I've never sat and watched the full film. Never watched the follow-up films either aside from the gory clips I've caught over the years. I honestly never got why my mates liked that film (Jaws) so much. I think a lot of it was run on hype.
Plus, maybe, it's because I've never liked the sea. I have never swam in the sea. To be honest, I'm scared of it. I've touched the water with my fingers, but I would never get in for a swim. I'm not scared of water, I swim at the baths, but the sea has things living in it, things I can't see.
Some people are genuinely shocked when I tell them I've never swum in the sea... but at least there's no chance of a rubber shark getting me. So, that's probably why I've never been bothered about sharks and the like. They live in the sea... I'm nice and safe on land. And, if I did happen to be at a beach where a shark attack was occurring, I'd definitely be safe, watching it from my deck chair.
Just watched this tonight. On the plus side it looks amazing. Absolutely. Most of the stunts were done for real. Some are breathtaking. The cinematography and action are amazing. Not sure about Tom Hardy as Max yet. Leave it with me. I heard essence of Bane now and again. This is a good thing by the way.
It's just overall it seemed far more a Charlize Theron movie than a Mad Max one.
As for the plot - it was arse head bonkers. This is not a good thing. Most of the time I found myself thinking "The fuck?". Oh, we'll drive here then find something out, stop then go back. There was a bit more to it than that, but not quite enough more.
Overall I wasn't impressed. It wasn't too far off in some parts. Other parts were plain batshit nuts.
They sure as hell put the effort in, visually at least. The stunts are well.. stunningly stunting. I'm sure if I was younger and less jaded I might have even enjoyed it at the cinema. On the way home however, I'd have that Phantom Menace feeling. Every now and again I'd go "Hang on, that bit was a load of bollocks!"
Then later I'd be going "Hang on, that bit was bollocks too!"
I was very underwhelmed by this, and actually found it so over the top throughout, that it actually made it rather dull, as it was pretty much the same thing, over and over and over and over and...
Nothing here rang remotely realistic, so I couldn't really care or fear for anyone. The vehicles, the characters, the stunts, the violence....nothing.
Story-wise, there's absolutely nothing here at all.
I'm sure it's "cool" to some peeps, but for this old Kid, it was quite weak.
Pages: 
Author
Mad Max: Fury Road
Logged
Locked Board