Action film of the decade?....I think not.

Rating: 5/10 (22 May 2015)

As a *huge* Mad Max fan, like many others, I've been eagerly awaiting the next offering from George Miller, and I've been excited about it for years.
I saw the first two films when I was very young, and being something of a petrol-head (along with my curious fascination for all things post-apocalyptic), I found them to be absolutely sensational, especially Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior. And back in the day, when we used to hire films on a video tape from a shop, I became very familiar with all the cheap, bargain-bucket low budget flicks from the 80's and 90's that Mad Max 2 clearly inspired, and that the various Directors of such films totally ripped off.
And that's the thing right there - Mad Max:Fury Road felt to me like one of those movies, but with a much bigger budget. It's almost like George Miller has created a pastiche of not just those B-movie 'Mad Max 2' copies, but also of a genre and style which he created.
Of course, I'm well aware that this is supposed to be a re-boot, but in many ways, it's 'Mad Max 2', without the realism or the plot. I also realise that part of the angle here, is storytelling with minimal dialogue and character development. But for me, it just didn't work at all. By the time I was halfway through the film, I really couldn't care less about them, or what was actually going to happen. Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult turned in a couple of great performances. However, Hugh Keays-Byrne, another fabulous actor, and brilliant as Toecutter in the original film, was, frankly, laughable, and more like a pantomime villain. How on earth his character was supposed to be a credible, brutal, post-apocalyptic warlord is absolutely beyond me. He looked like a fat, old man, with bits of vacuum cleaner stuck to his head. Christ, I find Barry Scott from the 'Cillet Bang' adverts far more intimidating. But worst of all, Tom Hardy was a major disappointment. He's one of my favourite actors, and fabulous in everything I've ever seen him in.....except this - and he's *not* Max. Again, it's like 'Wheels Of Fire' (1985) or 'Exterminators of the Year 3000' (1983), whereby someone is playing a 'Happy-Shopper', bargain bucket version of Max Rockatansky. Unfortunately for Mr. Hardy, he clearly had very little to work with, very little to do, really, and his performance was stifled somewhat. And on top of that, he was, to all intents and purposes, a secondary player.
It's a Mad Max film, that doesn't predominantly, and essentially, feature Max himself. And neither, does it feature any explanation, background structure, or plot development regarding Max's past, save for the odd weird 'flashback'/nightmare featuring his dead daughter (yet it was his infant *SON* who was killed along with his Wife in the original, but...fine - it's a 'reboot' - you've got carte blanche, Lord Millerumgous). But yeah, nice one, George - we're just automatically supposed to know what those flashbacks mean, aren't we, because we all saw the original film.....right?.... despite the fact that this is meant to be a 'reboot' (the lovably trendy word in the film industry, for recycling something that was great the first time around, and turning it into a disappointing pile of rubbish, whilst capitalising on the name and reputation of the film, to get the paying punters in.)
That's one of the biggest problems with this film - Max isn't the main character. This isn't a 'Mad Max' movie. Another crucial piece in the Mad Max world, is his 'Pursuit Special V8 Interceptor'. It's one of *the* defining things of the first two movies, that in this offering, barely means anything, barely gets used, or is a pivotal part of the film. I saw an interview with George Miller, who stated, regarding Max, that 'the Interceptor is back' and 'that's all he has'. Which is precisely how it was in MM2, and yet here, it barely gets a look in. What we *really* wanted to see, was, essentially, Mad Max 1.5 - we wanted to see the transition between the first and second films, as fans.
Now, as a very keen car/vehicle/machinery enthusiast, I can hugely appreciate the incredible time, effort, design, and execution of the vehicles in this film. To get that lot together working in one place, and choreographed in the action sequences is really quite something. But again, it's like a high-budget pastiche of the original idea. Regardless of how well they're designed and put together, the vehicles are just way over done, and utterly preposterous, frankly.
Like I said, this just *isn't* 'Mad Max', I'm afraid. What it *is*, is a film that Cirio H. Santiago and his coequals would have made, if they been given several hundred metric tonnes of cash and the chance to squander it. This film, could have any title, and different character names. There's practically *nothing* that defines it as a Mad Max film. I've watched the original 3 films quite literally, hundreds of times. I've seen this once - and have no desire to see it again. And thus, it's 5/10 from me, because it's average at best, and only the stunt work makes it scrape in, at that.
There's a saying in the UK, which is fairly self explanatory - 'All fur coat, and no knickers'. I think that perfectly sums it up.
I've read that Tom Hardy has signed up for another 3 MM films. Let's just hope that at least a couple of them will give the fans the sequels (or now, prequels) that they wanted in the first place. Because while this film may cause a new generation to salivate, it leaves the previous one needing a glass of irradiated water. Hey! What's wrong with a little fallout?