![]() ![]() Which, is barely even a flaw, given that both are fully fleshed out, strong characters that you don't see in a big budget summer blockbuster, ever, anymore. Also along for the ride is Charlize Theron, among many others, who, to be honest, just about steals the show away from our main character, which, to be honest, is about as big of a flaw that this film really has. Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Lawless, Locke, The Drop) has stepped into the iconic shoes of Max, once previously inhabited by than newcomer, Mel Gibson. He was 40 years old than, and he has returned to his career making franchise (same goes for the star of the original films, Mel Gibson, as that was his first major role, and the first film to get him recognized) a mere 30 years later, at the age of 70, to make one of the most thrilling, visceral, emotional and overall monumentally technically impressive and satisfying blockbusters, of the past decade, hands down. The last time he ventured into the post-apocalyptic wasteland that is the world of Mad Max, was Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, in 1985. George Miller is back, after spending most of the last twenty years devoted to family entertainment, such as Babe: Pig in the City, Happy Feet, and Happy Feet 2. While I felt like character development was weak, the action is massively entertaining, the visuals are gorgeous, and the story can get surprisingly emotional. ![]() Overall, I highly recommend this movie to older teens and adults. ![]() I also found a subtle message within the movie of how hope exists, even in the absolute darkest of times. More strong female fighters make an appearance as the film progresses. Speaking of Furiousa, she's an incredibly strong female character who's bravery and independence is up to par with Max. Also, while the wives could be considered "damsels in distress," it's important to note that they were born and raised as slaves, so they never had much of a choice, and they learn to fight as their journey with Max and Furiousa continues. But the movie steered clear of that level of objectification. If they were sexualized, the camera would have to pan around their bodies, show off their cleavage, etc. They are shown in somewhat minimal clothing, but considering the setting (hot, dry deserts) it makes sense. Also on another note, I did not find the "wives" characters to be sexualized or distracting in any way. Otherwise, the violence on the same level as the Lord of The Rings movies but with guns, arrows, and once again, car crashes. Also the aforementioned scene involving the pregnant woman is much less disturbing than CSM's review suggests (no blood and the actual removal of the baby is off-camera). While the movie is filled with violence and car crashes, and can get quite intense in the final quarter, blood and gore is actually very minimal (one scene where a minor enemy's ribcage is briefly visible and a character's mouth is torn off, the aftermath later shown for about two seconds).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |