We're never going to see a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road again
The second people got their hands on it, Mad Max: Fury Road felt special. The movie, which came 30 years after the last installment in this franchise, felt like a miracle. Set almost entirely in the desert, its sheer scale and intensity were so marvelous that, even though it's a deeply weird movie, the 2016 Oscars simply couldn't resist nominating it for many awards.
10 years later, Fury Road's stature has only grown. Even though we got Furiosa, which I'd argue is every bit as good as Fury Road, Miller's first return to Mad Max since Beyond Thunderdome is undeniably the one with the bigger cultural imprint. It's a movie we're not likely to ever see again, not just because of its greatness, but because no one else will be dumb enough to try.
Recommended Videos
Fury Road could have been a disaster
Part of the reason Fury Road feels like such an overwhelming success is because you get the sense, even just watching the movie, that the whole thing could so easily have gone sideways. The movie is set almost entirely outside, and by her own admission, one of its stars didn't fully understand what they were doing.
Charlize Theron said that she was 'incredibly scared' while shooting the film because she had never worked on a project like it and 'didn't always understand the narrative that we were telling.'
An entire book was written about the making of Fury Road. The movie could have gone off the rails in so many different places. Instead, it feels like a singular, kinetic achievement because of the person behind the camera and his approach to the material.
Fury Road is action filmmaking in its purest form
Perhaps the greatest compliment you can pay to director George Miller is that you can watch Fury Road with the sound off and the movie still totally works. Fury Road is kinetic cinema at its finest, a movie where characters' actions are explained almost entirely by how they move and where the point of almost every second of screen time is to see where characters are headed next.
It's been pointed out that Fury Road is essentially a two-hour chase scene. The irony is the main characters decide to turn around a little over an hour in and just head back to where they came from.
The pointlessness of all that plotting could kill a movie with less visual flair than this one has. Instead, the movie manages to pack a punch not in spite of the circles it sends its characters in, but because of the combination of movement and stasis. These are characters trying to find a better life who realize that they'll have to build one for themselves.
Director George Miller is working at the peak of his powers here, and he was given the resources to make what seems to be almost exactly the movie he wanted to make. Furiosa, for all of its brilliance, is slower and more operatic than Fury Road. This is the kind of action cinema we rarely get on this scale, and it rips from the second it starts.
It's got a generational performance at its center
Fury Road is brilliant enough, but the most remarkable thing about the movie might be that it manages to center its main character's emotional journey through all the chaos that surrounds her. Theron's Imperator Furiosa is such an indelible character that Miller felt the need to make an entire prequel about her.
Much of that is thanks to Theron's performance. As Furiosa, she's fierce, vengeful, and protective, a pseudo-mother to the wives that she rescues from imprisonment. The film's most important moment belongs to her and her alone, as she collapses onto a once green desert, realizing that her entire plan is hopeless.
It's telling, too, that Furiosa so gracefully takes the mantle from Max and that the movie seems designed to facilitate that transition. The moment when Furiosa nails a shot that Max can't make, using him to steady her rifle, is brilliant and subtle, and one that both Theron and Tom Hardy sell completely.
Fury Road was a risk, and one that wouldn't get taken today
Fury Road rules because it doesn't feel safe. It's the kind of movie that can only be a home run or a disaster. Thankfully, it was the former. The modern blockbuster is defined in part by the desire to ensure that it will make enough money.
That means, in part, sanding all the edges off of every movie until all that's left is the parts that everyone can agree they like. Fury Road has imagery in it that could easily alienate, and that imagery likely did bother at least some people. For all of its success, Fury Road did not gross $1 billion, but it was a success nonetheless because it achieved a kind of word-of-mouth status that is still rare in Hollywood.
Few filmmakers ever get the chance to make exactly what they want on this scale, and even when they do, it's not something as daring and impressive as Fury Road. We should celebrate this movie's existence every chance we get. It's one of the great cinematic experiences any of us will ever get, and it seems unlikely we'll get another anytime soon.
Buy or rent Mad Max: Fury Road on Amazon or Apple.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Danny Boyle admits he couldn't make 'Slumdog Millionaire' today because of cultural appropriation concerns
English director Danny Boyle said that he would not direct "Slumdog Millionaire" if it was made today due to "cultural appropriation" and would rather have a "young Indian filmmaker" make it instead. "We wouldn't be able to make that now. And that's how it should be. It's time to reflect on all that. We have to look at the cultural baggage we carry and the mark that we've left on the world... At the time it felt radical," Boyle told The Guardian. 'Snow White' Becomes Disney's Worst-performing Live-action Remake In Nearly 10 Years Set in India, the movie tells the story of Jamal, a young "slumdog" who's been selected to appear on the country's version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", and hopes to also find his childhood lost love, Latika. Throughout his appearance, events from his tumultuous life are shown in flashback and help him answer the questions. Released in 2008, "Slumdog Millionaire" was a hit with audiences and critics, grossing nearly $380 million on a $15 million budget and winning eight Oscars, including Best Picture and Director for Boyle. Denzel Washington Shuts Down Reports He Bailed On Cannes Film Festival After Red Carpet Incident Read On The Fox News App However, despite its success, the movie was controversial for appearing to exploit Indian culture and portray stereotypes of India from a western perspective. Some Indian critics enjoyed the movie, but some Indian artists were underwhelmed, claiming it was "saturated with stereotyped images of India," TIME magazine reported. Boyle added that while the film was in production over 15 years ago, he was sensitive to the exploitative implications of making the movie as a foreigner then. "We made the decision that only a handful of us would go to Mumbai. We'd work with a big Indian crew and try to make a film within the culture. But you're still an outsider. It's still a flawed method. That kind of cultural appropriation might be sanctioned at certain times," Boyle told The Guardian. He went on to say, "But at other times it cannot be. I mean, I'm proud of the film, but you wouldn't even contemplate doing something like that today. It wouldn't even get financed. Even if I was involved, I'd be looking for a young Indian filmmaker to shoot it." Boyle's other notable movies include "Trainspotting," "Steve Jobs," "127 Hours" and the "28 Days Later" horror series. The latest, "28 Years Later", was released on Friday. Boyle nor his representatives immediately responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Click Here To Read More On Fox NewsOriginal article source: Danny Boyle admits he couldn't make 'Slumdog Millionaire' today because of cultural appropriation concerns
Fox News
14 hours ago
- Fox News
Danny Boyle admits he couldn't make 'Slumdog Millionaire' today because of cultural appropriation concerns
English director Danny Boyle said that he would not direct "Slumdog Millionaire" if it was made today due to "cultural appropriation" and would rather have a "young Indian filmmaker" make it instead. "We wouldn't be able to make that now. And that's how it should be. It's time to reflect on all that. We have to look at the cultural baggage we carry and the mark that we've left on the world... At the time it felt radical," Boyle told The Guardian. Set in India, the movie tells the story of Jamal, a young "slumdog" who's been selected to appear on the country's version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?", and hopes to also find his childhood lost love, Latika. Throughout his appearance, events from his tumultuous life are shown in flashback and help him answer the questions. Released in 2008, "Slumdog Millionaire" was a hit with audiences and critics, grossing nearly $380 million on a $15 million budget and winning eight Oscars, including Best Picture and Director for Boyle. However, despite its success, the movie was controversial for appearing to exploit Indian culture and portray stereotypes of India from a western perspective. Some Indian critics enjoyed the movie, but some Indian artists were underwhelmed, claiming it was "saturated with stereotyped images of India," TIME magazine reported. Boyle added that while the film was in production over 15 years ago, he was sensitive to the exploitative implications of making the movie as a foreigner then. "We made the decision that only a handful of us would go to Mumbai. We'd work with a big Indian crew and try to make a film within the culture. But you're still an outsider. It's still a flawed method. That kind of cultural appropriation might be sanctioned at certain times," Boyle told The Guardian. He went on to say, "But at other times it cannot be. I mean, I'm proud of the film, but you wouldn't even contemplate doing something like that today. It wouldn't even get financed. Even if I was involved, I'd be looking for a young Indian filmmaker to shoot it." Boyle's other notable movies include "Trainspotting," "Steve Jobs," "127 Hours" and the "28 Days Later" horror series. The latest, "28 Years Later", was released on Friday. Boyle nor his representatives immediately responded to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Jaws' turns 50: Steven Spielberg's caught-on-camera Oscar snub still smarts — and shows need for Best Director reform
Steven Spielberg, one could say, was less than pleased when he found out he was not nominated for the Best Director Oscar for his game-changing shark thriller Jaws. On Oscar nominations morning in 1976, the then 29-year-old was so confident that the blockbuster was "about to be nominated in 11 categories" that he turned the camera on himself to document his live reaction. "You're about to see a sweep of the nominations," Spielberg boasted in the footage (watch above), which has since become legend thanks to the Media Burn Archive collection. More from GoldDerby All the 'Abbott Elementary' Season 4 Emmy predictions, including those 'Sunny' guest stars Ryan Murphy and the JFK Jr.-Carolyn Bessette controversy, explained: Why 'American Love Story' Instagram post got so much hate Everything to know about 'The Pitt' Season 2 Along with friends Joe Spinell and Frank Pesce—both of whom were filming Rocky, which would go on to win Best Picture at the subsequent Oscars—Spielberg watched as Best Director was announced on TV. The nominees were Federico Fellini for Amarcord, Stanley Kubrick for Barry Lyndon, Sidney Lumet for Dog Day Afternoon, Robert Altman for Nashville, and Miloš Forman for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While that's legendary lineup of directors, Spielberg was aghast: "Oh, I didn't get it! I didn't get it! I wasn't nominated. I got beaten out by Fellini!" (Amarcord was the only film without a corresponding Best Picture nomination and had also won Best Foreign Language Film the year prior, giving it international distribution for 1975 eligibility.) By the time Jaws was announced as a Best Picture nominee moments later, it seemed like a consolation prize to the young director. "Well, it's about time," Spielberg stated, the sting still fresh. Spinell and Pesce also expressed frustration, comparing it to 1972 when The Godfather and Cabaret split the top two categories. "You cannot have the Best Picture unless the director is also nominated. Who made the picture?" Spinell declared. "The greatest picture of all time was made and they haven't recognized the director," Pesce added. Universal Pictures/Everett Collection After being informed by his assistant that Jaws was only up in four categories instead of the 11 he expected, Spielberg attributed the snubs to commercial backlash, meaning: "When a film makes a lot of money, people resent it. Everybody loves a winner, but nobody loves a WINNER." Although much has evolved with the Academy Awards in the 50 years since, Spielberg's theory still rings true. Jaws became the catalyst for the movie business model that exists today and also redefined what we think of as box office success. Still, high grosses don't necessarily translate to certain Academy Award recognition. At the time, many were overwhelmed by Jaws' commercial success and perhaps thought that was enough for the movie. Even today, the Oscars remain more of a launching pad for independent and purposely "artistic" films, only occasionally recognizing blockbusters for the top category—and even less so for Best Director. Back when there were only five slots in Best Picture, the stars would have to align for the kind of golden sweep experienced by box office juggernauts like Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, each of which won 11 Oscars and tied for the most all-time wins. The reason the Best Picture field expanded to 10 nominees can be credited to the outrage over Christopher Nolan's 2008 smash The Dark Knight being shut out of major categories. Since then, more blockbusters have been nominated—including Black Panther, Wicked: Part One, Top Gun: Maverick, Barbie, and both Dune films—but none of those corresponded to the directing category. As Spinell said incredulously in that 1976 clip, "Who made the picture?" READ: 'Jaws' at 50: Jeffrey 'Deputy Hendricks' Kramer recalls 'horrific' first scene and an epic Roy Scheider flub Jaws ended up winning three of its four Oscar nominations, taking home Best Original Score for John Williams, as well as Best Sound, and Best Editing. Spielberg went on to amass 23 nominations, including nine Best Director mentions and two wins. So while he may have been disappointed 50 years ago, Jaws kickstarted the career of Hollywood's most commercially successful director. At the same time, the Academy got it wrong then and continues to get it wrong too often now. Don't hold your breath for the organization to revamp the Best Director category to include more nominees; there is a lingering snobbery when it comes to the perception of art versus commerce, with the two rarely intersecting for voters. In the case of Jaws, history has proven the film's immense value. No offense to, say, Fellini or Kubrick—both undisputed titans of cinema—but a half-century later, neither of their 1975 offerings has the cultural cachet of Jaws. "Amarcord at 50" headlines just aren't a thing. Jaws, meanwhile, is still enjoyable as an intense, suspenseful thriller about an unlikely trio trying to thwart a great white shark before it kills any more innocent civilians. However, Spielberg also makes it a story about the complicity of local governments and the value of corporate greed over human lives—something that still resonates. And what Spielberg does with his camera, establishing the horror through underwater shots, split diopters, dolly zooms, and the alternating iconic two-note score by Williams has influenced filmmaking for five decades. Jaws is universal and unforgettable... and its Oscar omissions are truly unforgivable. Best of GoldDerby Tom Cruise movies: 17 greatest films ranked worst to best 'It was wonderful to be on that ride': Christian Slater talks his beloved roles, from cult classics ('Heathers,' 'True Romance') to TV hits ('Mr. Robot,' 'Dexter: Original Sin') 'It almost killed me': Horror maestro Mike Flanagan looks back at career-making hits from 'Gerald's Game' to 'Hill House' to 'Life of Chuck' Click here to read the full article.
