First Mad Mad, what's the appeal?

astroboy

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
After seeing the new one I went back and watched the old ones.


The first one doesn't really seem like it's part of the series. It's more like a rudimentary idea. And it's slow. Really slow. Most of it reminds me of the scenes on Naboo from ATOC.

The second one is a whole new genre. It's very good but it feels like it's the real film. In a sense, Mad Max was a prologue to the Road Warrior.

I really couldn't finish the third one. It was garbage. I gave up after the kids made their way into barter town.



I realize that there is very little continuity between the films but I have a theory that helps me sleep at night. My theory is that all four of the (vastly different) worlds of these film exist during the same time. I believe that around coastal parts of Australia, there are little communities like we saw in the first film. This allows him to be a cop. But at the end of that film, he drives off into the wasteland....that has been collapsed for 90 years already. By the fourth film, he is in the middle of nowhere. It's tribal. These people were born into this world, just like their parents before them.

In the fourth film, he says he used to be a cop. But charleze Theron was born into this world as it is. This makes sense if he was a cop in a small pocket of civilization far away from the fury road
 

Urbanmx

Active Member
I want to thank everyone again for answering my question. I may have to start another thread for Brazil, it was OK but I don't understand how it's some great scifi film?
 

Urbanmx

Active Member
This guy is some kind of troll genius.
I'm not trying to be, that's pretty funny. Popular Science has 100 greatest Scifi films and Brazil is on that list plus Adam Savage has talked it up on his podcast. I went into both Brazil and Madmax with high hopes and left both with low hope. I would say Brazil was better, but I have to think maybe a lot of it had to do with the time of release?
 

Wetwired

Active Member
I thought I wouldn't respond since the op seems to be trolling but anyway. Mad Max redefined how carchases were shot, you had not seen anything similar up til then. As it always is with classics, they seem cliched when watched 30 years after release but new viewers always seem to forget that theses classics invented those cliches.

The style of Mad Max is so striking you can even make a musicvideo 20 years later and it's still obvious.

[video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=0teP99JFwjs[/video]
 

Megamicrofish

Sr Member
I loved the original Mad Max, One of the first Laser Discs (remember those) I owned.
Did you know that the US version of Mad Max was dubbed to get rid of the "Australian" accents?
 

Solo4114

Master Member
I....don't really see how this is "trolling" per se. I don't see an attempt to enrage people, certainly. It's just an attempt to start a discussion...which worked. We're having a discussion about a given film. What's the big deal?

- - - Updated - - -

I loved the original Mad Max, One of the first Laser Discs (remember those) I owned.
Did you know that the US version of Mad Max was dubbed to get rid of the "Australian" accents?
That was fixed in the most recent DVD and blu-ray releases. You can now select the US dubbing or the original Aussie dubbing. The Aussie dubbing is WAY better, but the US dubbing is interesting as a curio.
 

Axlotl

Master Member
I called him a troll genius jokingly. I think he (OP) understood that.
That was in reference to his "Brazil" post.

I was imagining a new Brazil thread, where after about a dozen posts he then says
"Thanks for your input, guys. By the way, what's the big deal with Star Wars?"
 

dascoyne

Master Member
That was fixed in the most recent DVD and blu-ray releases. You can now select the US dubbing or the original Aussie dubbing. The Aussie dubbing is WAY better, but the US dubbing is interesting as a curio.
It's actually off putting and hilarious to watch Mel Gibson with that oddball dubbed American accent.

I remember when they first televised The Road Warrior. I was in agony when they redubbed the opening voice over. The original is beautifully chilling monologue told with true gravity. As I recall the "Americanized" dub was just your typical old geezer impersonation. I think they also changed the wording. It was awful.
 

Jeyl

Master Member
I remember when they first televised The Road Warrior. I was in agony when they redubbed the opening voice over. The original is beautifully chilling monologue told with true gravity. As I recall the "Americanized" dub was just your typical old geezer impersonation. I think they also changed the wording. It was awful.
This what you talking about?


And I agree. He's got a George C. Scott vibe going on. I actually like the "hope survives" bit a lot better than "learned to live again".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dascoyne

Master Member
This what you talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZ30QVRRVE&index=50&list=FLeS3I4wnmywfXgvLjCmrL_Q

And I agree. He's got a George C. Scott vibe going on. I actually like the "hope survives" bit a lot better than "learned to live again".
*groan*
that's the one.

the original is not better only for the performance but it is spoken by a man on his deathbed. It's all there.

the redub has none of that in the telling. The performance is devoid of a backstory.
 

Jeyl

Master Member
*groan*
that's the one.

the original is not better only for the performance but it is spoken by a man on his deathbed. It's all there.

the redub has none of that in the telling. The performance is devoid of a backstory.
Oh, I see what you were saying. I misread your quote. I still have a soft spot for this version but yeah. The original does sound more genuine and has a better payoff with the end reveal.
 

batguy

Sr Member
Papigallo's death still looks stupid even in another cut. Ugh.

I have always suspected that scene was compromised over something. A last-minute script change, they ran out of time, a prop didn't work, stunt went awry, etc.
 

Zombie_61

Master Member
...Then you must not have seen too many bad movies. Seriously, man, there are WAY worse films out there. Anything affiliated with the name "Uwe Boll," for example, most of Michael Bay's oeuvre, almost any movie that ever appeared on MST3K, etc., etc., etc....
Oh, I've seen more than my fair share of movies from nearly every decade since the year 1900--good and bad, high-budget and low-budget, A-list actors and people no one has ever heard of, and everything in between. And I'm not a "movie snob"; some of my favorite movies were made on a very low budget with acting that was less than believable--try sitting through Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things sometime. :D So I can differentiate between a movie I didn't care for but was made well, and a movie I didn't care for because it wasn't made well. For me, Mad Max falls into the latter category.

...I dunno. I can understand not enjoying the film, or finding it dull, or just not finding that style of film to be particularly engaging. But for what it is, for the budget they had, it's actually pretty well made. Try watching, say, the original Gone in 60 Seconds, which has WAY worse acting, and is (in my opinion) far less engaging story-wise, and constructed in a far more haphazard way. Its stuntwork is top-notch, but otherwise, it's really not a very well made film...
I agree with you about the original Gone in 60 Seconds; I saw it once, and that was more than enough. But getting back to Mad Max, it's been at least 25 years since I've seen it but I remember thinking it wasn't a well made movie regardless of the budget. As best as I can remember, the A.D.R. (looping or dubbing of dialogue, for those unfamiliar with the term) was out of synch in several places. The stunt sequences sometimes didn't mesh well with the story, as if the director decided, "We need an action scene here. Go crash into something," and weren't particularly dynamic or anything I hadn't seen before. The "bad guys" wardrobe (i.e., clothing, hair, and makeup) looked like a homophobic redneck's version of a drag party. And the editing occasionally felt like they either didn't have the footage they needed or didn't quite know how to tell the story with the footage they had. As a whole, I felt it was an amateurish effort by people who didn't really know much about what they were doing. But, again, I've only seen it one time from start to finish several years ago, so my recollection could be faulty.
 

cayman shen

Master Member
I consider it one of the best movies ever made. However, I LIKE simple, spare movies, revenge flicks, exploitation flicks, and the low-budget 70s aesthetic. (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is another favorite, for instance. A work of art). If your tastes run toward the more polished or nuanced, it's not gonna appeal. Makes my heart race. Is actually exciting and suspenseful, filled with menace. One specific thing I'll highlight is the acting. Jesus, Toecutter is great.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
Oh, I've seen more than my fair share of movies from nearly every decade since the year 1900--good and bad, high-budget and low-budget, A-list actors and people no one has ever heard of, and everything in between. And I'm not a "movie snob"; some of my favorite movies were made on a very low budget with acting that was less than believable--try sitting through Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things sometime. :D So I can differentiate between a movie I didn't care for but was made well, and a movie I didn't care for because it wasn't made well. For me, Mad Max falls into the latter category.
Fair enough. I concede that you clearly know your crappy films. ;) (and good ones)

I agree with you about the original Gone in 60 Seconds; I saw it once, and that was more than enough. But getting back to Mad Max, it's been at least 25 years since I've seen it but I remember thinking it wasn't a well made movie regardless of the budget. As best as I can remember, the A.D.R. (looping or dubbing of dialogue, for those unfamiliar with the term) was out of synch in several places. The stunt sequences sometimes didn't mesh well with the story, as if the director decided, "We need an action scene here. Go crash into something," and weren't particularly dynamic or anything I hadn't seen before. The "bad guys" wardrobe (i.e., clothing, hair, and makeup) looked like a homophobic redneck's version of a drag party. And the editing occasionally felt like they either didn't have the footage they needed or didn't quite know how to tell the story with the footage they had. As a whole, I felt it was an amateurish effort by people who didn't really know much about what they were doing. But, again, I've only seen it one time from start to finish several years ago, so my recollection could be faulty.
It might -- might, mind you -- be worth a rewatch. The stunt sequences, I think, are pretty on-point for moving the story along. The opening sequence is solid and establishes the threat the gangs pose, as well as the lengths to which the cops are going to stop them, and Max's own willingness to engage in fairly hard-edged tactics (playing chicken with the Nightrider). The other action sequences (e.g., bikers chase the guy out of town and wreck his car; Goose is attacked by the bikers; Jessie and Sprog's death; Max's revenge) are all relevant for the story, in my opinion. The camera work may be a bit jarring at points, but it's serviceable.

My recollection of the bad guys' wardrobe is that it's pretty straightforward as biker wear, albeit not in the sense of an organized MC. The homoerotic stuff appears more in the second film, to my recollection, other than things like Bubba Zanetti's eyeliner.

I can see where the editing might feel off, though. There are some jumpy cuts, and some of the angles for the action seem kind of disoriented. In some cases, you can claim (maybe) that it's artistic choice to make the scene feel viscerally disorienting, but in others it might just be that this was a rookie filmmaking team.


As for the ADR, you're likely the victim of the infamous American dub, which was really, really bad. The Aussie dialogue track is much better, has better emphasis, and just sounds more natural overall.
 

jheilman

Sr Member
All I had ever seen until the later DVD release was the American dub. When I first heard the original on DVD, it added a whole new layer of "genuine" to the film for me.
 

Zombie_61

Master Member
It might -- might, mind you -- be worth a rewatch...
I don't disagree. My opinions of certain movies have changed over the years--some for the better, others for the worse. Worst case scenario would be that my opinion doesn't change.

...As for the ADR, you're likely the victim of the infamous American dub, which was really, really bad. The Aussie dialogue track is much better, has better emphasis, and just sounds more natural overall.
When my wife and I saw the first 30 minutes in the theater in 1979 it was definitely the "American dub" version, but when I saw the whole movie years later most, or all, of the actors had Australian accents and I still thought the ADR was poorly done. That's nothing more than my opinion, but I have to admit that I sometimes notice "flaws" in movies that most people don't notice.
 
Top