Mad Max: Fury Road: The Should, the Could and the Empty

At first glance, Mad Max: Fury Road is a straightforward post-apocalyptic flick. Some critics have stated that the character devlopment is lacking, or that the film is a nonstop action sequence with a barebones story. In some ways, this is true. But to dismiss George Miller's glorious, 30-year delayed return to the future wastelands of Australia as just an orgy of violence would be a mistake and an insult to the 70-year old filmmaker.

Tom Hardy replaces Mel Gibson in the titular role of Max Rockatansky, who has definitely taken a further dive off of the deep end by the time this film starts. He hears voices, sees the faces of those who have died around him, and explains his insanity as a result of his inability to fix the wrongs of this desolate world. While Hardy does a good job stepping into Gibson's shoes, Max is not truly the main character of the fourth installment of his own series. There is little to no character development to him beyond a slight shift from abandoning those who need him to aiding them (in a very similar fashion to Mad Max: The Road Warrior, considered the best before Fury Road). For someone who is watching Fury Road as a standalone film, the lack of background on Max beyond a brief monologue in the beginning will be frustrating. For those who have seen the first three films, we already have been shown much of Max's origin and development, and so it is not needed here again.

But Fury Road can truly stand on its own as one of the most progressive action films in decades. Most only will feature female characters in either a supporting role, like Black Widow in Marvel's films, or as a weak character that the men must defend. Men have traditionally held the lead roles in action films due to their characterization with war and violence, and most women will either be helpless or, even if they are strong, become little more than love interests (see Black Widow). George Miller decided very early on in production that Furiosa, the warrior woman portrayed by Charlize Theron, would essentially be as great a figure as Max (even letting it slip that he had already written a script for a potential sequel, Mad Max: Furiosa). And she sure is the badass and lead role in Fury Road. She fights, stabs, shoots, and directs the entire film's course, seeking to rescue "breeders" from a patriarchal dictatorship. The film essentially follows her efforts to deliver these women, who essentially live for nothing more than to be impregnated by the dictator of a settlement (it is implied that they are treated as objects and raped as sex slaves), to a safe place to rebuild their lives in. Whereas Max is the wild card, the man caught in the middle of these two factions, Furiosa is the leader and strong woman that will lead them to a greater tomorrow.

As a fellow writer, I can truly tell that Miller put heavy effort into this story, despite what other critics have said. His film covers man's destruction of the environment amidst war (perfectly symbolized by the destruction of a tree in one scene), the motivation and life of a suicidal warrior (the villain's War Boys believe they will go to Valhalla if they die in battle, causing them to act much like a suicide bomber), and even the age-old argument of dictatorship versus democracy. The "breeders" are a very obvious presentation of sex slaves that exist even today, used for little more than pleasure and posterity, and Furiosa is the personification of a woman freed from that societal constraint. Then a final message about reform rather than abandonment provides a perfect to the end of what amounts to a two hour car chase.

Oh, but the action is glorious. Everything that I often complain about modern action films disappears into the dust of Fury Road's enormous desert. I can count on one hand the times that computer animation was used, and it was always well done. Similarly to one of my favorite current directors, Christopher Nolan, Miller wanted his film to have as much special effects as possible, meaning expensive construction of cars, ridiculous stunts, and lots of explosions. This is the film that all action film directors need to see to understand how action should be choreographed and shown (I'm looking at you, Zack Snyder and Michael Bay). The fights are real and epic, the chases are long and frenetic, and the violence was actually toned down from the first three films (the worst parts happen offscreen). Trust me, all of the praise regarding this film's status as an adrenaline rush of violence was on the nose.

However, there is something that I cannot quite place my finger on. I don't have any real complaints about the film, but I cannot call it a perfect film. I think the barebones backstory of the three main characters was part of it, but their actual personalities and motivations were well fleshed out. The somewhat repetitive nature of a movie that relies on chase after chase for action could also be a part of it, along with the wondrous but monotonous desert landscape. All in all, these are very minor complaints, so I still highly recommend this to those who want a good action film that actually has a heart and a brain to it (The Dark Knight comes to mind), unlike the typical and endless slew of movies we get nowadays.



Verdict: You SHOULD see Charlize Theron tear up the screen in this fun, smart film, and I eagerly await a sequel where she takes center stage (please, George Miller!). It was decent in 3D, but I wouldn't recommend it, unless on IMAX, in which case I would definitely recommend!



Reminder: Definitely Should > Should > Probably Should > Could > Could in a Dollar Theater > Empty > Empty Inside