Mad Max: Fury Road - Most overrated movie of 2015?

Doubt it, considering it won. I also think Revenant lacks the complexity and depth of characters that Birdman has. For all the quirk Birdman has it still a very oscar friendly movie.

__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

The gimmick is a little silly and the all-caps takes some getting used to, but it's not like the article doesn't make some salient points regarding the use of cinematic language and how it works better in Mad Max than in The Revenant.

A barometer with only two settings does not sound like a particularly useful barometer. Might want to pick a better metaphor next time. In any case, trying to split the difference between "serious" films and "fun" films as if one type is more inherently worthwhile than the other is rather myopic, especially when Mad Max blurs the line between them as much as it does.

That's your perception. They're both fundamentally basic narratives rooted in chases and vengeance, but a main contention with the Hulk essay is that Mad Max does a better job of fleshing out its narrative and characterisation despite its outward appearance of a glorified B-movie about an endless car chase, whereas The Revenant does not actually do anything to distinguish itself as a film beyond its ambitious visual approach and thus comes across as a fundamentally empty excuse for a revenge film. It's only made worse by the fact that The Revenant is trying so hard to be taken seriously, which makes the fact that there's next to nothing about it that can be taken seriously especially damning.

I'm just taking issue with the fact that you brought up the true-events thing as if the fact that The Revenant was based on true events automatically granted it favour over Mad Max, but at least you recognise that historical accuracy did not get top priority when it came to the storytelling.

I never actually said his performance in Mad Max was good, you just assumed that. I only ever talked about how his performance in The Revenant earned some unwarranted praise - if people were going nuts over his work in Max the way that they were over Revenant, I'd be a little more dubious about its quality. If I'm talking good Hardy performances, I look at Bronson or Locke - his work in The Revenant hinders things. When the film takes time out for him to deliver a fireside monologue that is supposed to develop and humanise him as a character (rather than just have him be a flat villain), I want to be able to understand it because I want to understand the character, so for him to talk in a barely-comprehensible growl seems counter-productive to developing him as a character.

I'm sure that, if you specified that you were talking about The Revenant, you'd be getting some acknowledgment. Still, I reckon if you're that unimpressed by the first 45 minutes then I wouldn't hold out much hope for the rest of it.

I think it's a question of intent. Spotlight may not have been a flashy film, but it had something to say and did a good job of saying it. I wouldn't have picked it for Best Picture myself, but I consider it a respectable winner. The Revenant, on the other hand, never actually feels like it's saying anything and arguably needs to lean on its main selling points (DiCaprio, Lubezki, Hardy) in order to work as a film, which does not make it feel like a worthy contender for Best Picture.

The film still needed Max. Even though he is effectively sidelined by the narrative, he still has his own arc where he has practically gone feral in his urge to survive and avoid connecting with people, so his uneasy alliance with Furiosa is what helps him to rediscover his own humanity.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

It was more a question of "if Inarritu had made The Revenant in 2014, wouldn't that mean that he didn't make Birdman?"

I like seeing you defend Fury Road, Iro. It amuses me. *villain laugh*

Ah. No, The Revenant isnt a dialogue wonder, but thats because its striving for authenticity first and foremeost. No mountain men spoke with any eloquence, more than 95% of them were illiterate. Revenant was going all-out for the immersion.

Fury Road fleshed out its narrative and characterization better than The Revenant? ITS FICTION! They had the advantage of making what they wanted compared to telling a story. Fury Road was a "feel", a heartbeat that will fuel its own crazy genre forward another 10 years or so. I love it, but its not real. Its not based off of actual real things that have happened. This is why non-fiction has a deeper impact on some more than others.



Fury Road was the craziest of rides, but still shallow. If it were trying to be deep it wouldve been a mistake, and they didnt overdo it with the melodrama in Revenant. Heartwrenching angst? Not those people, not back then, and yeah I appreciated the fresh simpleness.

*loud cough*

I would argue that both are pretty thin on narrative and characterisation. Both are trying to distinguish themselves visually. One by being high octane, and wowing us with practical effects. One going for a stripped down natural approach, and showing how beautiful you can make that. Both films are very showy from a visual standpoint. So what do you respond to? Many responded to both. Some to neither. Revenant haters are dying to show us how Innaritu is nothing but flash in his craft with no substance. Just say you don't like the film. The Hulk, or whatever it is, has an extremely flawed argument.

__________________
Letterboxd

Yah, i think i can make my own mind up. I really find this stuff ridiculous.

Thank Sean... watch out i'm probably making decisions for you

I'm not expecting them to sound like Patrick Stewart here, but they have to at least meet me halfway here if they really want me to care, especially if - like I specified - it's a moment that's vital to understanding a character as more than just a gruff villain.

It seems a bit disingenuous to insist that The Revenant should get the edge over Mad Max because it was based on actual events instead of fiction, especially when - as has already been noted, even by you - that its treatment of said events sacrifices historical accuracy for the sake of drama anyway, essentially favouring fiction over non-fiction. The real Hugh Glass never actually had a son - that was a fabrication on Inarritu's part because apparently Glass merely getting left for dead by Fitzgerald wasn't enough motivation. You do have to take pretty much every based-on-a-true-story with a grain of salt and be aware that what you are seeing on-screen is not necessarily a 100% accurate depiction of what happened. In the case of The Revenant, when the change is significant to the development of the plot and characters, it's liable to make me question the filmmakers' motives and try to engage it in order to see if the change works or not.

And The Revenant isn't shallow? I'm not really seeing much more depth to it than with Mad Max.

Seems a little rude to dismiss a lengthy critical analysis of a film with a simple "just say you don't like the film" instead of actually trying to engage with what they're saying and consider whether or not their viewpoint has any merit (even if it is buried in a silly HULK SMASH gimmick). It's not like you respond to long positive reviews by saying "just say you like the film". Can you tell me how the argument is flawed in a way that goes beyond some wishy-washy "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" rhetoric?

Iro, youre arguing that Revenant wasnt authentic enough compared to Fury Road which has 0 restrictions or boundaries. So the director concocted the son, ok. The task Glass did is actually more monumental because he had less motivation than I originally thought. I understand you like Fury Road more, and some agree. Cool beans.

I really shouldn't have said people should just say whether they like the movie or not. I should have said this person should have just given the reasons they didn't like The Revenant. So many people wrote long exposes on how pompous Inarritu is after The Revenant, and frankly it bothers me. The guy is one of the few people trying to press himself further in his craft and he gets grief from a lot of people for it. As I said, my problem with the article is it starts from the flawed premise that Mad Max is deep on narrative and characterization. It most certainly is not. I am not saying The Revenant is. They are both stretching themselves visually. In different ways, but still that is where their bread and butter is.

No, I'm not. Not every criticism I make about The Revenant carries with it an implicit compliment for Fury Road, least of all the complaints about historical inaccuracy.

See, that's the thing - what is the difference between disliking a film and criticising it? If anything, a person disliking a film can be dismissed easier - if we boil things down to the like-dislike dichotomy, then it's just another variation on the whole "everyone has their own opinion" thing. You liked this film. I didn't like it. We move on. End of discussion. That's all well and good, but to actually engage with a film on a critical level is its own thing and should be treated as such, especially when it becomes the jumping-off point for an analytical discussion of a film's merits (or lack thereof). It's not like calling Inarritu pompous is the sole reason for the Hulk article's existence, but it does provide an interesting insight into whether or not The Revenant actually works as a film by examining the creators' intentions. If Inarritu has such disdain for the idea of genre films (as evidenced by his strong reaction to an interviewer referring to The Revenant as a Western), then how can his film truly defy or even transcend the genre's apparent limitations? As a result, it's very easy to question whether or not he's actually an example of a filmmaker who's pressing himself further in his craft if he doesn't seem too interested in engaging with the nuts and bolts of the craft like George Miller does. The Hulk article goes into greater detail, but if your take on it is "Hulk thinks Mad Max is deep and that's just wrong" then I'm not sure what to say. It's a demanding read, I know, but it does actually offer an interesting juxtaposition of the two films that invokes a lot of technical analysis of both films and how the visual styles can help or hinder their respective films.

What IS the value of historical relevance?

Big or small, the movie itself is always going to diverge from reality in some way. The actors are actors, not the people themselves. "The Revenant" is still a story any way you slice it, so what about it's true-to-life qualities embolden it? Life itself can still be boring, shallow, and feature incredibly unengaging grumbly people.

If anything, historical relevance is a handicap, because like any adaption, you have a canon to do justice.

So is your point that everything is fiction unless its a documentary? I regarded the "events" as true, but not the overall story told.

The will to survive.

Historical relevance a handicap? Not every story has the shock the neurons in your brain every 5 minutes or less. I think something truly impressive when its real. I cannot be truly impressed by Mad Max killing dozens of goons compared to Hugh Glass near death crawling thru the wilderness to survive.

I hated Mad Max Fury Road so much that I couldn't watch it, it gave me a headache!

The Revenant I liked, but it's not amazing. If you removed the on location filming and the CG special effects, the story itself wouldn't hold up will.

Documentaries contain plenty of fiction too. I think the point is that you can't give any more value for a film being historically accurate than you can for it supposedly being a fantasy. Personally you can, of course, but for the purpose of somehow arguing successfully for or against one film vis-à-vis another, it carries no weight.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I Loved it

The will to survive? Who's will? Survive what? The characters? Because they are characters whether it's fact or fiction.

My comparison was to adapting canon, not Fury Road.

Once again, if people actually knew what Ink was, they wouldn't presume I'm an adrenaline junkie who hates surrealism.

I AM an adrenaline junkie, but the point is that's not every movie.

In that case I have an incredible movie for you:


That must be some BADASS crawling through the wilderness. By Leonardo DiCaprio.

My point exactly.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Okay, you have to get off the my criticism is better than your criticism thing. No, I don't write 5,000 word essays on everything I see, but I am not especially reductive either. Plus when I am, I am more than willing to admit it and further the conversation. The thing about this article is it goes a long way to tell you that Hulk was not immersed in The Revenant, but it is beautiful so he can see why people are. I am fine with his criticisms actually. I can certainly see The Revenant leaving some one cold. Where The Sean says bullsh!t is when the hyperbole kicks in for Mad Max. Again, I understand why people love this movie so much but to use at as a case against The Revenant is misrepresenting what Mad Max is. To say the characters are more well defined is weak. There isn't a character in The Revenant that doesn't have clear motivations. If The Hulk loved The Revenant he could have easily kept the same adjectives in this piece and flip flopped the movie title and director names. It is a long essay but that doesn't mean it isn't a puff piece. No, I'm not going to write an equally long essay to say why I think he is wrong. If that's what your going to come back with, save it. Because that becomes as reductive as "that movie was boring".