Mad Max: Fury Road

1979 seemed like such a peaceful time. In that universe, Australia didn't seem so hot and sandy, and Max wasn't all that mad. Things have changed so much. In the fourth installment of the "Mad Max" franchise, "Fury Road," Max is indeed very mad, and things are very chaotic. George Miller returns Mad Max to the screen after a thirty-year hiatus. Miller had quite the challenge in revitalizing his famous character: 9/11, Mel Gibson's controversies, and the death of Heath Ledger all stalled the release of a fourth "Mad Max" film. I have to tip my hat to Miller. I was completely bored by his first "Mad Max" film, released in 1979. I'm willing to acknowledge its importance and influence, especially in the action/sci-fi genre, but that doesn't erase my boredom from it. I didn't think that the sequel, "The Road Warrior," was much better. I did, though, enjoy the third film, "Beyond Thunderdome," which I feel is about tied with "Fury Road." These two are good but not great films, in my mind.

The two most recent films in the saga are vastly different. "Beyond Thunderdome" has a fairy tale-like feel, as if Max is the leader of the Lost Boys (and girls). Here in "Fury Road," Max is haunted by illusions of dead people, including children, who believe he could have saved them but failed. Max is a haunted man, and at the beginning of the film he is kidnapped by henchmen to be used as a blood donor for road warriors. The leader of the citadel where Max is taken to is a frightening figure named Immortan Joe. Joe is a complete despot, and he sends his band out to fetch some oil. The team is led by a one-armed lady named Furiosa (played by Charlize Theron), but things go awry when she takes a detour. Joe discovers that Furiosa has taken his five beautiful young wives, one of whom is pregnant with his child, in an attempt to escape to a land of (literally) greener pastures. From here, the movie is a non-stop chase scene, featuring some of the most impressive stunts and visual effects in recent memory. The only problem is that Miller and his team once and a while show little subtlety when more is needed. One scene in particular takes place in a sandstorm and is completely unnecessary; brace yourself for a massive headache. But still, Miller and his team have done a good job with their loaded budget. I firmly believe that there should be a category for stunts at the Academy Awards, and if there were one, "Fury Road" would certainly be nominated and probably would win. The stunt coordinator, Guy Norris, apparently commanded over 150 stunt performers. As for the visual effects, Miller has claimed that 90 percent of the effects were practical ones. Compare that to the dreadful "Avengers: Age of Ultron," in which the performances prance around in front of a green screen while fighting an enemy who's not really there.

In "Fury Road," however, the villain makes quite a show. Hugh Keays-Byrne appeared in the original "Mad Max" as the antagonist. He does here, too, but in a much more frightening performance. His role in the first film was pretty minimalist, and his most recognizable feature probably remains that giant blond maim. Here, he plays a different character, Immortan Joe, and the role is unlike virtually any previous villain we've ever seen. He's pasty white with darkness completely surrounding his eyes; he apparently needs some kind of breathing machine, which is decorated with the teeth of a demonic skull. He has complete control over the people, and showers them only briefly with water for them to fight over. Keays-Byrne does a fine job portraying this tyrant. Nicholas Hoult is one of Joe's warriors who is so much a believer of Joe's propaganda that he's willing to die and ascend to Valhalla. If you know your Norse mythology or at least watch "Vikings," you'll know that the warriors of Scandinavia believed that the toughest and most righteous fighters gained access to Valhalla. Hoult's character, Nux, really wants to die in a glorious battle, but he becomes disillusioned with it all. Hoult is pretty good here, intense and fiery, almost humorously so, and has again demonstrated his ability to play almost any kind of character. It's so radically different from his performances in "About a Boy," "A Single Man," "Warm Bodies," and the "X-Men" movies that he's becoming a young Lon Chaney.

As for the other actors, I was less impressed. The performance of Hardy as Max is something that I had mixed feelings about. By now, Max is so destroyed that I imagine his suffering inspired Hardy to grunt and talk in a manner that likely was frying his vocal chords and probably left his larynx in a lot of pain by the end of the day. Hardy's choices have also revealed a wish to do just about anything, whether it's playing a villain (in "The Dark Knight Rises") or doing essentially a one-man show ("Locke") or appearing in grittier films ("Lawless" and "Warrior"). But it seems it's always his vocal decisions that turn me off of his acting. Similarly, Furiosa is an interesting character, but Theron gives a pretty uninspired performance. But again, it's Mr. Miller and his production team who deserve a lot of credit for helping to tame the love affair the movies have had with CGI. That being said, this doesn't mean that I really think there should be another "Mad Max" movie. 1979-2015 is a pretty long run. Leave Max be.