I Feel Like I'm Watching A Stunt Show

Rating: 1/10 (31 January 2016)

You know how you go to any amusement park and there's always that really cool stunt show? It could be Waterworld at Universal Studios or the Indiana Jones stunt show at Hollywood Studios (Disney World), any of those. There's a short little story (loosely based on a deeper film plot), a good guy and a bad guy both after something, they do some choreographed fighting, they jump onto specially-made contraptions, some areas are rigged with pyrotechnics and water splashes, people are running all over set, maybe even cars are spinning around and chasing each other. For 10-20 minutes, it's a cool live show and a great opportunity to take a break from the long lines and the rides at the amusement park.
Now imagine George Miller decided he wanted to film one of these shows, edit his footage with some colorful touch-ups, and compile two hours-worth of said footage into a film. That is Mad Max: Fury Road.
I decided to write this review after actually watching the first Mad Max and The Road Warrior so I can understand the backstory of Mad Max. My initial opinion of Fury Road still stands. I really tried to like this film after seeing all of the critics' and fans' reviews. I watched the film twice to see if I was maybe tired the first time. I still felt nothing.
I agree that the action is quite something. All of the stunts feel real and non-CGI, which is particularly rare for films nowadays. But so what? As real as it was, the action felt drivel, repetitive, and boring. I particularly LOVE action films, but this action did not do it for me. Even with the high speed chases (that lasted the entire film), the decked-out cars, the flame-throwing guitars, the explosions, I didn't feel the adrenaline kick in as I had hoped, nor did I ever feel I was viewing a spectacle. There were some action sequences I felt were interesting, such as the chained fight, but they only lasted a few minutes out of the entire film and were mild at best.
It had everything, so what was the problem? What the film lacked was directing. The camera-work and direction don't do anything to help place the audience into the action, to feel it. All I get are either 1. Overhead crane shots that show how large the groups are and what surrounding action is taking place, 2. Long shots to emphasize distance, and 3. Close shots to show what's going on. The camera is only documenting the stunt show that is this film. At times where the film takes a short pause in action and progresses its "story," Miller attempts to develop some emotional depth in the story, but in the end it only comes off as trying too hard to appear deep and emotional. The character development was not there to help the audience understand the emotional moments.
For my personal tastes, I didn't find the film's theme or look appealing nor unappealing. It didn't click with me. The cinematography was beautiful and emphasized the contrast in a beautiful, naturalistic, post-apocalyptic world. But the costume and prop design I didn't get and at times found it bizarre and gross, and oftentimes flat-out ridiculous. Minimal leather gear in the desert? Mothers basically wearing bikinis and makeup? I didn't get it.
Overall, don't expect any plot or character development in this film. While this IS a sequel and thus does not require deep character development, the original Mad Max series didn't have much depth and development in them in the first place. That said, you can start off with Fury Road and figure out what Max's (minimal) backstory is from there. The action is real and unique, and, yeah, it's cool to watch live for 20 minutes at an amusement park. But two hours? No thanks.