All in all, this film has nothing to do with Mad Max. And the final product is a travesty.
How do you reach that conclusion? Thematically-speaking, the film brings full-circle Max's character arc from the preceding two films, from loving family-man to hardened, bitter loner, all the way back around again to someone whom has finally regained some spark of his former humanity and sense of involvement in the affairs of the world.
It's very much of an emotional piece with the previous two films, and in fact one can say that Max's character arc is not fully completed until the very end of
Thunderdome. Without the third film, his journey is still unfinished.
I am sure the fans of the originals, were pretty disappointed to watch that kid's mess in the cinema.
No, I certainly didn't regard it as such when I saw it in the cinema...in fact, the general reception at the time was quite ecstatic, for the most part. It's only been the interceding three decades of increasing cynicism and the advent of the Internet echo-chamber that's suddenly begun this weird backlash against this movie.
Also, the whole film seems to be "jealous" from the 2 Indiana Jones films success that were released just 1-2 years before...Even the music seems liked Indiana Jones's music at times...
Actually, regarding the music, note that the film's composer was Maurice Jarre, who composed the score for
Lawrence of Arabia (a film that John Williams has openly acknowledged as being a huge influence upon the soundtracks of the various
Indiana Jones movies).
When holding conversations with Jarre as to his then-upcoming score for
Mad Max, George Miller in fact requested that it echo and be very reminiscent of his
Lawrence of Arabia score.
So, no...the filmmakers weren't "jealous" of the
Indiana Jones films' music; they were actually getting the man from whom the
Indiana Jones films themselves borrowed substantially, from a musical standpoint. They wanted
Lawrence of Arabia, not Indy. And they got the original -- it's the reason why they sound so similar to one another.
reply
share
Termi21
9 years ago
How do you reach that conclusion? Thematically-speaking, the film brings full-circle Max's character arc from the preceding two films, from loving family-man to hardened, bitter loner, all the way back around again to someone whom has finally regained some spark of his former humanity and sense of involvement in the affairs of the world.
Well that's your conclusion... And personally i don't like it. As someone said below, they intended to make a different movie, and then decided it to make it a Mad Max movie, so your logic is just an assumption to make things sound prettier. The truth is that Hollywood wanted a PG-13 movie for more money, which "incidentally" came after 2 similarly toned Indiana Jones movies (Which had HUGE success compared to the two original Mad Max movies, so why not?). It's not the first time directors sell out (ex. Cameron and the Terminator 2, compared to Terminator 1. Difference is Terminator 2, despite being PG-13, it was a great movie by itself)
Actually, regarding the music, note that the film's composer was Maurice Jarre, who composed the score for Lawrence of Arabia (a film that John Williams has openly acknowledged as being a huge influence upon the soundtracks of the various Indiana Jones movies).
When holding conversations with Jarre as to his then-upcoming score for Mad Max, George Miller in fact requested that it echo and be very reminiscent of his Lawrence of Arabia score.
So, no...the filmmakers weren't "jealous" of the Indiana Jones films' music; they were actually getting the man from whom the Indiana Jones films themselves borrowed substantially, from a musical standpoint. They wanted Lawrence of Arabia, not Indy. And they got the original -- it's the reason why they sound so similar to one another.
Ok... i can buy that. Mad Max didn't copy Indiana Jones music, they both copied Lawrence of Arabia music. But considering, the film't style and tone, and Indiana Jones coming out 1-2 years before, it's not difficult to understand why they hired the "original" composer (Maurice Jarre) of that music to do something similar again.
Well we can express opinions and ideas all day, but at the end of the day, Mad Max 3 was the least liked movie by the public, or more specifically Mad Max 2 fans. They went to see a cruel, action movie, and they got a kid's movie.
EvEn DeAtH MaY DiE
reply
share
9 years ago
[deleted]
Termi21
9 years ago
I stand corrected...
Yes the USA Rating is R, although in many countries it's less if you check it.
I actually saw it when i was 13 at the cinema.
The fact is that the first one was a pure thriller and Terminator actually killed people, although his "good" version in No2 only shooted on the legs (at Connor's "request") and the movie is mostly "action" not a thriller.
Still the effects were revolutionary and one of the best movies for a then teenager like me (check out my nickname ;) )
---
EvEn DeAtH MaY DiE
reply
share
zerospin
9 years ago
"So, no...the filmmakers weren't "jealous" of the Indiana Jones films' music; they were actually getting the man from whom the Indiana Jones films themselves borrowed substantially, from a musical standpoint. They wanted Lawrence of Arabia, not Indy. And they got the original -- it's the reason why they sound so similar to one another."
I just watched the whole trilogy for the first time ever and the third movie was clearly, beyond any doubt reminding me of Indiana Jones. It was 'indianajonesed' so to speak. I'm not talking about the music here, but the way they changed Max, the PG-13 action sequences with a bit of humor added here and there, the kids a-la Temple of Doom etc.
I can see the studio bosses saying "let's change it to feel more like Indiana Jones to get more money by jumping on the Indy craze'.
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain"
reply
share
Fortyseven203
9 years ago
Just watched all three movies this month, in prep for Fury Road (which I saw tonight).
Before this month, I'd only seen Thunderdome -- one I had considered a favorite, but I hadn't really seen it since the 80s. The other movies I only saw small clips of.
Completely with you on this: this flick is easily the oddball of the franchise. Fury Road is a much more worthy sequel. "Indiana Jones" popped into my head, too, especially when Max is unwittingly "auditioning" for Auntie at the start of the flick. Much too 'funny', trying hard to be clever with the combat... because they sure as hell can't spill any blood.
Still, Auntie, Master Blaster, and the general idea of Bartertown, with the methane power and Thunderdome are really cool. But then the children show up and the entire movie grinds to a halt. Liked their backstory, though.
It really feels like two different stories inside one movie. The connective tissue between the two is weak.
-----------------
http://bytestemplar.com/
reply
share
clickbait
8 years ago
Fury Road is a much more worthy sequel
Fury Road aint a sequel...its the first movie of a new rebooted trioligy...it was first considered as a sequel but when Gibson turned it down cause he wanted to much money to star in it, George Miller decided to make a soft reboot and a whole new trioligy with Tom Hardy instead.
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~
reply
share
din_a3
9 years ago
How do you reach that conclusion? Thematically-speaking, the film brings full-circle Max's character arc from the preceding two films, from loving family-man to hardened, bitter loner, all the way back around again to someone whom has finally regained some spark of his former humanity and sense of involvement in the affairs of the world.
By no stretch of the imagination can anyone perceive Max walking alone in the desert as him coming full circle.
He becomes a bitter loner when his wife and kid are murdered and that's what he remains through the next three movies: he starts alone, gets in trouble, becomes an unwilling hero, then walks away alone again.
This movie is a
joke compared to the other three.
reply
share
buddyboy28
9 years ago
By no stretch of the imagination can anyone perceive Max walking alone in the desert as him coming full circle
I don't agree. At the end he sacrifices himself for the kids. Also the final image of him is him wearing the cloak and carrying the staff which means that it could just be an image in Savannah's head or that he did make it back to the tribe. The fact there was a deleted scene where Max has flashbacks to his wife and child's death which is his main motivation for going after Savannah and the others clearly shows that was George Miller's intention for his arc.
But personally I don't like it. It felt too overly done. It worked better in Road Warrior where he just smiles at the end and as he fades out, it's up to you whether or not if he will go on to be a saviour out in the wasteland for others rather just blatantly telling you and portraying him as a messiah figure.
I reckon you got a bargain don't you?
reply
share
Meven_Stoffat
9 years ago
No, I certainly didn't regard it as such when I saw it in the cinema...in fact, the general reception at the time was quite ecstatic, for the most part. It's only been the interceding three decades of increasing cynicism and the advent of the Internet echo-chamber that's suddenly begun this weird backlash against this movie.
Wrong. My dad saw this back in its initial release and he hated it. He even told me that most of the cinema was grumbling things like "well that sucked" and "from the the Road Warrior to THIS??" upon walking out.
I will plant a f--king palm tree in your neck and f--k you f--king gently in its shade!
reply
share