Product: Mad Max (1979)
Rating: 3.0
Worthwhile cult flick, albeit dated and aloof
"Mad Max" is the first of a trilogy, followed by "The Road Warrior" (1981) and "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" (1985). Very few people in the States saw "Mad Max" when it was released in 1979 because it only had a limited run here. Most Americans were introduced to the dystopian world of Mad Max with the release of "The Road Warrior" a couple years later.THE STORY: Ambiguously set in the near future after some sort of Apocalypse or social-economic breakdown, "Mad Max" focuses on the desolate regions of Australia wherein the police force, called The Bronze, try to protect what remains of society from a wild outlaw bike gang."Mad Max" is perhaps the definitive cult film -- it's weird, raw, primal, ugly, low-budget and shuns explanation. Star Mel Gibson was a complete unknown at this point.WHAT WORKS:-- Director George Miller is imaginative with his unusual use of camera angles. I usually don't take note of such things so it has to be exceptional for me to notice.-- The costuming and locations are great, shot in the desolate areas of Victoria, Australia, including along the ocean shore.-- Although a bit cartooney, the filmmakers and actors successfully capture the utterly wild, looney and lawless nature of the bike gang, sort of reminiscent of, say, "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and "The Warriors (1979).-- The girls are fetching in a girl-next-door type of way.-- The scene where a mother and child are run over by the outlaw bikers is creative and memorable.WHAT DOESN'T WORK:-- The film has a really dated, low-budget vibe, especially the horrible score. One might argue that this is natural since it's from the late 70s, but that's not what I'm talking about. A film can obviously be from a certain period without being dated in the negative sense. Take, for instance, "The Exorcist" (1973), "Jaws" (1975), "Suspiria" (1977), "Apocalypse Now" (1979) and "The Warriors," they're all plainly from that 70s era but they also transcend it. They're timeless films, pure and simple. Not so with "Mad Max."-- My main problem with the film is its aloof air. As noted above, the story shuns explanation -- which is great -- but it does it at the expense of truly captivating the audience. The film's only 95 minutes long but I always have a hard time sitting through it; the story is good but it's presented in such a way that it fails to truly pull the viewer in.-- The vibe is often too over-the-top cartooney; I would have preferred a more realistic air. It's too obvious the filmmakers were shooting for an Australian "A Clockwork Orange."This is not a negative point to me but it may be to some viewers -- there's not nearly as much action as rumored; there are many long, dramatic parts. In addition, what action is there is good but it's no more spectacular than pretty much any other 70's road/car flick or TV series.BOTTOM LINE: "Mad Max" is definitely worthwhile since it's the beginning of the popular trilogy and a definitive cult film, not to mention one of Mel Gibson's earliest performances. But, despite the many positives, don't expect to be blown away. It's decent but low-budget fare with a dated, aloof vibe.PERSONAL GRADE: C+