Jinn's 100 Films of the 2010s

How can I choose between Three Amigos or Tree of Life?

...However, Tom isn't just the maddest Max of them all in Fury Road, but he also transforms into a very caring one at the end...

...showing that it's not just a one-dimensional take on an old character, as he shows a broad range of emotions in the film, which leads into one of my other points; it's not so much that Hardy's Max is better because I feel he's better at acting than Gibson (as I honestly don't know which one I feel is a better actor anyway), but because he has more of a chance to shine due to his starker overall characterization, as his Max gets to be more animalistic than Gibson ever was (who, while anti-social in The Road Warrior, still remained quite calm throughout), while also getting a stronger arc in rediscovering his humanity, which felt a bit lacking in the original trilogy, which is why it feels like Miller choose to redo the character's arc with the overall soft series reboot that was Fury Road in the first place. I'm not saying Gibson wasn't a good Max in the original trilogy (because he was), and I'm not putting Hardy over him now because of subsequent scandals jn his personal life (which is an absurd conclusion if anyone's trying to imply that's what I'm doing here), but he just didn't leave as much of an impression as Hardy because the material he was given wasn't quite as strong, IMO.

Saying Tom Hardy isn’t a great actor baffles me in the same way people say Nic Cage isn’t a great actor. Sometimes they’re wrong for a role or the movie isn’t worthy of their talents, but they are spectacularly talented and daring in their performances and when used correctly, there’s hardly anyone better right now.

Agreed.


Tom Hardy in Warrior is pretty close to being my favorite male performance of the last ten years. And Nicolas Cage, while rarely ever going for true realism, understands the idea of character creation as a creative process, and few are as creative as he is.

Saying Tom Hardy isn’t a great actor baffles me in the same way people say Nic Cage isn’t a great actor. Sometimes they’re wrong for a role or the movie isn’t worthy of their talents, but they are spectacularly talented and daring in their performances and when used correctly, there’s hardly anyone better right now.

Like I said, I think Tom Hardy is a good actor.
But lemme give you an example. When I saw Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I remember thinking, "Tom Hardy was really good in his role." But I also remember thinking that he was about the SEVENTH best actor in that movie. I thought of him as up and coming compared to the actors around him who had such astonishingly easy subtlety and reality to them.
He really is good, I don't mean to diminish him at all. But he has some years to go before he will be a craftsman on the level of a Gary Oldman or John Hurt or Colin Firth and he simply doesn't have that generational magnetism like a Mel Gibson.
So, as good as I think he is, I think I have him slotted right where he belongs.

Yeah, I feel like Gibson did all that and then some, whether it was in the original film, or as the savior of the children sacrificing himself for their future in Thunderdome.
I actually thought they gave Max less to do in Fury Road, as they were focused so much on Furiosa, which for me was a better choice anyway because it didn't feel like Hardy, or Miller for that matter, had much to add to the Max character at this point and Theron is simply a better actor than Hardy, by a fair margin. I didn't see FR as a "soft reboot" so much a passing of the torch to a new character with Hardy there more as stand-in for Gibson while Theron shined. I feel like this was corroborated by Miller saying the next film in the franchise would be a Furiosa movie.
And I'm not saying Gibson was a good Max in the original trilogy, I'm saying he made Max Rockatansky and it was never going to be another actor's role, and Hardy is the proof in the pudding. He's a good actor. I don't know that he's a great one but he's good. But as far as a whole series of Max movies with him in the title role, well, I just can't see that being a big draw without someone like Furiosa or Immortan Joe to help him carry the film.

I'll reiterate that I feel the Mad Max series hasn't always known what to do with Max

the original serves as a pretty good, accidental "origin story" for a character that didn't even exist before it

The Road Warrior ended up rushing or underplaying his redemption arc in that particular entry, with no real big "My name is Max"-level moment, so while Warrior is still a great film on the whole, it's more to do with the stuff not having to do with Max's arc (or lack thereof, as I would put it).

I think Miller realized that, and why he wanted a do-over with Fury Road, not just with the recasting of Max, but also the resetting of his arc back to where it was at the beginning of Warrior (but even more anti-social and animalistic this time), so he could finally give the character that big redemption arc that he was always missing

as far as I'm concerned.

He’s a substantially better actor than Colin Firth and has far greater range than Hurt (whom I likely love more). Oldman is the only one in that film that merits comparison, as Hardy dwarfs Jones, Strong, Cumberbatch or the other various character actors that populate the film.

The issue is that Hardy is at his best when the material is as demanding and challenging as his talent necessitates. I can’t see any of the other actors you mentioned pulling off his performance in Bronson (Oldman, perhaps, but he lacks the dedicated physicality in that respect), let alone films like the Revenant, the Drop or Warrior. Even misfires like Capone and Venom are the type of trainwreck histrionics only a superb talent can generate.

It’s like watching Brando in a Countess From Hong Kong and saying he’s only a “good actor” because he doesn’t have that effortless, screwball charm of Grant. Different actors have different strengths and fit different roles better than others. The roles Hardy is capable of filling are those few could ever manage.

While I think I've expressed some form of this opinion before, I'll reiterate that I feel the Mad Max series hasn't always known what to do with Max, depending on the film; in retrospect, the original serves as a pretty good, accidental "origin story" for a character that didn't even exist before it, but The Road Warrior ended up rushing or underplaying his redemption arc in that particular entry, with no real big "My name is Max"-level moment, so while Warrior is still a great film on the whole, it's more to do with the stuff not having to do with Max's arc (or lack thereof, as I would put it). That leaves the Max in Thunderdome without much of anywhere left to go with his arc, which was mostly already finished by that point anyway (plus, it's the weakest entry in the series anyway), and I think Miller realized that, and why he wanted a do-over with Fury Road, not just with the recasting of Max, but also the resetting of his arc back to where it was at the beginning of Warrior (but even more anti-social and animalistic this time), so he could finally give the character that big redemption arc that he was always missing, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm on the phone with MoMA right now.


It isn't an accident when a story creates a character that didn't "even" exist before.




His name is Max, Stu. Another bad take after another.


Except none of this is true. Fury Road was starring Mel Gibson in the 2001 and 2003 aborted shoots. Recasting Gibson was due to his age (and quite likely his then-recent scandals) and not for any purpose of correcting the character's arc. There's no indication, in the film or in Miller's interviews, that Fury Road was intended to erase, or "reset the arc" of, the two previous Mad Max films. Max's redemptive arc in each of the preceding two films is clear on even a cursory viewing: his choosing to do what's right over what's in his best interest. This shift to altruism is also his motive in Fury Road. More importantly, Fury Road happens to logically continue the arc of the previous films in the level of societal degradation, which is fairly mild in the first one, the immediate post-collapse chaos in the second, primitively congregated Bartertown in the third, and commodified blood, water and wombs in the fourth. Each film successively pushes the memory of civilization further into the horizon.

Wait, wut?
If we're comparing Hardy to Brando now, I'm just gonna bow out of this discussion.
If not, I will say that I respectfully disagree that Hardy is better than the actors you mention. Strong's performance, in particular, stands out to me as being ahead of anything I've seen Hardy do (I think strong is an absurdly underrated actor, btw) and is one of the reasons I refer to that film as The Acting Class. Cumberbatch's performance is the best of his career so far and was probably my second or third favorite in the film.
I'm not knocking Tom Hardy. I really do think he's good. He's got some years and some work to go though, for me, to be compared evenly to those actors much less considered a better actor. He does have a certain steamy magnetism, unequal to Gibson's so far, but I acknowledge it. But that doesn't make in him a truly great actor.

Il
Casting Hardy and Brando in certain, less flashy roles is like using a Ferrari to pick up groceries.

Pretty sure this happens in a Beverly Hills Cop sequel.

See? Not even in the original.

Saying Tom Hardy isn’t a great actor baffles me in the same way people say Nic Cage isn’t a great actor. Sometimes they’re wrong for a role or the movie isn’t worthy of their talents, but they are spectacularly talented and daring in their performances and when used correctly, there’s hardly anyone better right now.

I don't really see Nick Cage as a great actor, however, he has this dynamic charisma that glues you to paying attention to him whenever he's on screen, and in a way, that trait is more rare than having acting chops. His best pure acting performance was Leaving Las Vegas imo, and he was indeed brilliant in that movie.