Movie Review: Mad Max: Fury Road

Mad Max: Fury Road (2014)

R

4.5 Stars out of 5

Director                                            George Miller
Writer                                               George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nick Lathouris
Cinematography                             John Seale
Music                                                Junkie XL

Max Rockatansky                            Tom Hardy
Imperator Furiosa                           Charlize Theron
Nux                                                    Nicholas Hoult
Immortan Joe                                  Hugh Keays-Byrne          

The Wives:
Toast the Knowning                       Zoe Kravitz
The Splendid Angharad                 Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
The Dag                                            Abbey Lee
Cheedo the Fragile                         Courtney Eaton
Capable                                            Riley Keough

Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth installment in the Mad Max series. However, on many levels it stands by itself, improved in almost every aspect from the first three: stunts, cinematography, art design, acting (by Charlize Theron, anyway). But how does one review a movie like any of the Mad Max films? Is there anything beyond technique; is there some value to this movie, or any from the genre of action films (Chris Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy comes immediately to mind) where the highest praise that one could award a movie such as “Mad Max: Fury Road” is that the stunt scenes (which comprise virtually the entire movie) were artfully and skillfully directed. I could find no value beneath the skin, so to speak, but be that as it may, it is a superbly well-made action movie.

“Mad Max: Fury Road” begins with a beautifully shot opening scene of Max (Tom Hardy) standing by his “upgraded” car. This scene is so iconic of the movie and the series; it is no surprise that this scene is often shown as the poster for the new movie. We see a lone man standing by his car/steed staring into the desolate distance. It is beautifully emblematic of the series (of Westerns) and of the man, Mad Max. But it is also curiously misleading as it begins a film wherein Max is almost immediately captured and will quite frankly spend almost the entire movie playing a role secondary to the events that surround him, and even more so to the superbly acted role of Furiosa (Charlene Theron). Theron will show via slight and subtle facial expressions the deep despair and loss her character has endured. There is very little need to explore her back story; it is written on her face. Tom Hardy on the other hand continues his version of acting via grunts and other mono-syllabic comments that he began in the aforementioned Dark Knight trilogy (“The Dark Knight Rises”). There must be something to his acting that appeals to Christopher Nolan and George Miller, but it is invisible to me. I hear only the grunts and see only the stone face.

Max is captured very early in the film and is taken to the mesa-like fortress of Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Joe has captured a water monopoly in this post-apocalypse waste land. His subjects are destitute and live in awe of his god-like power over them. Joe also has at his command a small army of young soldiers that live to die for him. Joe rules in league with two other nearby centers of power: one for fuel, the other for ammunition. Joe sends out his top lieutenant Imperator Furiosa with her war rig (a hugely modified semi-tractor trailer) for fuel. Little does Joe know that Furiosa has a plan to smuggle out Joe’s harem of super model breeding wives in order to take them to safety at the “Green Place” and out of Joe’s reach forever. Thus begins the movie: a prolonged journey into the wasteland by Furiosa and her charges, chased by Joe and his allies. It goes without question that many bullets are fired, many cars are crashed, and much gasoline-fueled explosions take place.

The viewer knows that Max will join the chase and ally himself in time with Furiosa. How can he not? Despite her outward appearance, it is clear she is pure of thought, or at least of intent. Max does join up with her and his path in doing so is very amusingly told with him chained to Nux (Nicholas Hoult). Nux is a warboy, one of Joe’s aforementioned minions serving only to die in Joe’s defense. Nux needs a supply of blood for reasons not in the least clear to me, but he gets it from Max, and thus Max is chained to him. I found the early scenes from the chase where Nux and Max are chained to one another but somehow must ultimately survive and to ally themselves to Furiosa to be the best part of the chase. It is clever in the sense that the viewer knows this is going to happen, but how director/writer George Miller will bring it about is the fun part. Unlike many parts of the movie (which has plot holes big enough to drive a war rig or two through), Max’s alliance with Furiosa is fairly believable; Nux’ addition to the team is less so, but I can accept it.

The illogic of so much of the movie lies in the subordinate characters. First up are the five wives that Furiosa is trying to save: Toast the Knowning (Zoe Kravitz), The Splendid Angharad (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley), The Dag (Abbey Lee), Cheedo the Fragile (Courtney Eaton), and Capable (Riley Keough). It is perhaps a staple of such films that the meek and mild will ultimately rise up to challenge the well-armed bully, but it stretches my imagination too much to watch an third-term pregnant woman wildly swinging from the war rig’s doorway shooting at bad guys. But what really blows me away is the idea of the aged remnants of Furiosa’s original clan (the Vuvalini) living in a wasteland so barren that not a speck of green, let alone of any water can be seen. Or add to that, their elaborate ruse of placing a naked woman atop a three story structure screaming for help. Really, how often does a potential enemy come along this particular waste land that such a ruse could prove of any value? This example of “bait” is my primary problem with the movie. It is a movie admittedly set in the future, but not theoretically in fantasy land. People still need realistic means of surviving and simply having wildly designed vehicles with machine guns strapped on to them is not a viable means of survival. The story line has elements of value (primarily the wives’ desire to raise their children out of harm’s way), but it seems to exist to solely provide opportunities for the amazing car and motor cycle stunts.

I do love the art work (see for a great view of the various cars) set design, and cinematography. I even am fairly fond of the non-stop kinetics of breathtaking stunts and action sequences; and hats off to George Miller for re-booting the Mad Max series with an overt nod to women and their very non-Mad Max way of looking at the world. But ultimately, if this movie is viewed in any manner other than as an action flick, is there anything unique (the woman’s POV notwithstanding) about the writing, about the ludicrous plot holes and non-existent science; no, in my opinion. So, let’s drop any of the pretensions one can find in the reviews about this movie being a woman’s movie, and consider this movie solely as an action flick. There are admirable elements that offer acknowledgment to women’s physical prowess and their desire for a safe place to raise their children, but this movie cannot be seriously be considered as anything but an action flick.