Because it's well made.

There is nothing elaborate about the plot and it is just a chase film. And those are the kind of films that have to get by on cinematic craft.

The Raid is another example of this. Even if these films are made adequately they would be pointless, bad films. They really do require exceptional skill and an understanding of rhythm and tension to pull off. So people like Fury Road for this well crafted atmosphere and intensity.

But, yeah, I can see why people who need some sort of plot to take their interest just wouldn't like FR.

I'd also say there is a difference between narrative and plot. So I'd add that FR has a great narrative but little plot.

"People need some sort of plot?" Isn't that the supposed to be the main element of a film? I suppose "chase film" as a genre could supplant plot, but I doubt that was the filmmaker's intention.

@MongoLloyd said:

"People need some sort of plot?" Isn't that the supposed to be the main element of a film?

It depends on the film you're watching. Many films are mainly about telling a good story, yes. But there are many that have other aspirations. Many art films have little or no story. There are a lot of them in which almost nothing happens. Terrence Malick films tend to have no plot but are regarded as works of art.

There are films that are primarily mood based. You watch them to let the atmosphere wash over you. Lost in Translation would be a perfect example.

Richard Linklater has made his career mainly on films with people just walking around chatting. Slacker, Waking Life, Dazed and Confused. Before Sunrise is thoroughly absorbing but has no plot whatsoever.

Some films are more about the characters, some are a fly on the wall, slice of life kind of thing.

But the one relevant Hollywood action film that instantly springs to mind is Heat. The plot of Heat sucks. It's a cop chasing a criminal. That's it. But it's absolutely captivating. This is due to the tension created, the performances, characters and dialogue.

I suppose "chase film" as a genre could supplant plot, but I doubt that was the filmmaker's intention.

Given that the other Mad Max film that is regarded as the best- Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior also has little in the way of plot, I'd say it was Miller's intention. I think the Mad Max films are more about it's chaotic world than complex plotting.

The fact that Fury Road is more tension and action based rather than plot based makes it feel less mainstream. Less compromised or sanitized. It doesn't feel like it's trying to satisfy a broad audience.

Films like Fury Road, The Raid, The Naked Gun or Evil Dead 2 get a lot of respect because they focus on a specific element such as action or comedy or horror or tension. And they go all out. They are niche. And they feel more satisfying because it feels like they made the film for a very specific audience.

A broad audience would get bored of the same thing pretty quickly. I enjoy broad films as much as the next guy. But I do usually prefer more unrelenting, focused films. Which is why I like Fury Road.

I liked it better in the BLACK AND CHROME edition. Lots to be said for style.

This thing had a plot, just not a very complicated one. It told a story of loss, of courage, and madness in an insane world. Yah, it had a STORY, and that’s what movies are supposed to do, in dialogue and images.

Some people would prefer THE THREE LITTLE PIGS over THE ONE LITTLE PIG cus the story would be more drawn out and complicated, but if the destruction of the first pigs house was over the top and really cool, maybe you wouldn’t need the rest.

And if the pig jumped onto the hood of the big bad wolves car with an exploding spear screaming “. WITNESS MEEEEE!” Well, that would be friggin EPIC!

Worst 'twist' ending ever?

They decide to turn back and go home! Wow - that made the plot pointless.

And Tom Hardy mumbles and grunts throughout. Not much charisma. Still, it had some very cool action pieces. I enjoyed it.

Apparently the director got screwed out of some of his fee and has taken Warner Bros to court!

Apr 16, 2018 - The future of George Miller’s “Mad Max” franchise is in jeopardy as a court battle between the director’s production company, Kennedy Miller Mitchell, and Warner Bros. heats up in Australia’s Supreme Court of New South Wales. Miller’s company is suing the studio for unpaid earnings on “Mad Max: Fury Road.” The director spoke briefly about the lawsuit last November, but The Sydney Morning Herald has obtained new court documents that detail the battle between the two companies.

The lawsuit accuses Warner Bros. of acting in a “high-handed, insulting or reprehensible” manner and “destroying” its relationship with Kennedy Miller Mitchell by refusing to pay the production company a bonus fee for delivering the movie under budget. Kennedy Miller Mitchell claims it is eligible for $9 million after it delivered “Fury Road” under the agreed budget of $157 million. The production company says “Fury Road’s” final budget was $154.6 million, although Warner Bros. claims the film went way over budget and cost $185.1 million.

Don't expect Mad Max 5 anytime soon. Well, not with George Miller at the helm.

@JustinJackFlash said:

Given that the other Mad Max film that is regarded as the best- Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior also has little in the way of plot, I'd say it was Miller's intention. I think the Mad Max films are more about it's chaotic world than complex plotting.

That's not true in the least. The plot is very clear in TRW and develops perfectly right up to the resolution when Max finds out they screwed him over. There's even a character arc of sorts since Max wasn't going to get involved, but then does.

The fact that Fury Road is more tension and action based rather than plot based makes it feel less mainstream. Less compromised or sanitized. .

Or just lazy & less of an actual narrative feature film. It's little more than eye candy as far as I can tell. Is "eye candy" a genre?

A broad audience would get bored of the same thing pretty quickly. I enjoy broad films as much as the next guy. But I do usually prefer more unrelenting, focused films. Which is why I like Fury Road.

Interesting rationalization.

@MongoLloyd said:

I watched the first 37 minutes and had to stop. Did anything happen besides non-stop chase scenes?

Kind of an obvious question, isn't it? People like the movie for their own reasons. Because you can't square with it doesn't mean that others can't apply different standards.

I thought it was fun the one time I watched it, mainly because it was a throwback (for the most part) to stunt-heavy action movies of the past. So many films, especially superhero movies, have replaced live stunt men with CG puppets that it was refreshing to see that much if not most of the work in Fury Road was done on the set.

As for the plot of the film, yes it's very simplistic. But for many, but not me, Theron's performance was revelatory. Max, played by Hardy, was largely relegated a secondary, observer role and even if he mumbled a lot he wasn't terribly integral to the action. The costume work was eye-catching and the cinematography was top-notch. In short, it was a largely technical, visual (especially the costumes), and visceral experience which was appealing to many at the time. And the director and editor blended it all together in a very effective pastiche.

I see it no differently than Avatar. Looking back, most people realize that Avatar too was an extremely simplistic movie. It dealt in a large number of familiar, and even overused, Sci-Fi and movie tropes. (Good vs. Evil, corporate vs. native, the outsider as the prophesied savior, the rebellious turncoat, etc.) But at the time, the sheer magnitude of the achievement of how WETA and Cameron merged CG performances with live action in a 3D environment was an event in and of itself. It wasn't mentally challenging, but it filled the senses.

In short, some people just want to be entertained.

@AlienFanatic said:

Theron's performance was revelatory.

LOL

In short, it was a largely technical, visual (especially the costumes), >and visceral experience which was appealing to many at the time. And the >director and editor blended it all together in a very effective pastiche.

Wow, did you go to art school?

I see it no differently than Avatar. Looking back, most people realize that Avatar too was an extremely simplistic movie. It dealt in a large >number of familiar, and even overused, Sci-Fi and movie tropes. (Good vs. Evil, corporate vs. native, the outsider as the prophesied savior, the >rebellious turncoat, etc.) But at the time, the sheer magnitude of the achievement of how WETA and Cameron merged CG performances with >live action in a 3D environment was an event in and of itself. It wasn't mentally challenging, but it filled the senses.

In short, some people just want to be entertained.

Well, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of masturb.ation except when it comes to movies.

@MongoLloyd said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

Given that the other Mad Max film that is regarded as the best- Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior also has little in the way of plot, I'd say it was Miller's intention. I think the Mad Max films are more about it's chaotic world than complex plotting.

That's not true in the least. The plot is very clear in TRW and develops perfectly right up to the resolution when Max finds out they screwed him over. There's even a character arc of sorts since Max wasn't going to get involved, but then does.

The fact that Fury Road is more tension and action based rather than plot based makes it feel less mainstream. Less compromised or sanitized. .

Or just lazy & less of an actual narrative feature film. It's little more than eye candy as far as I can tell. Is "eye candy" a genre?

A broad audience would get bored of the same thing pretty quickly. I enjoy broad films as much as the next guy. But I do usually prefer more unrelenting, focused films. Which is why I like Fury Road.

Interesting rationalization.

Or let me put it another way. A film could have an absolutely superb plot. But if the filmmaking is terrible the film will suck no matter what. There are many films that have little plot but are loved because of great filmmaking. Plot comes secondary to filmmaking craft.

@MongoLloyd said:

I watched the first 37 minutes and had to stop. Did anything happen besides non-stop chase scenes?

Other than being slightly cliché, I found that Max's character arc was most satisfying. So if you stop the film at 37 mins then you're not giving the film an honest chance.

@Russ007 said:

@MongoLloyd said:

I watched the first 37 minutes and had to stop. Did anything happen besides non-stop chase scenes?

Other than being slightly cliché, I found that Max's character arc was most satisfying. So if you stop the film at 37 mins then you're not giving the film an honest chance.

Let's see... we start with a guy we don't know who eats a lizard ANNNND the chase is on. I know he's supposed to be Max Rockatansky, but I'd be willing to bet most 20-somethings who saw this and who seem to love it so much never saw the original Mad Max, so some form of character development would be helpful.

He's chased non-stop for over 30 minutes, and in that time, we get to see the fantastical world the tribe lives in with a seemingly unlimited supply of energy and water. For a group of diseased desert dwellers, it seems like no less than a miracle that they were able to build machines that hoist mega-ton vehicles into the air, were able to collect mass amounts of potable water and were able to maintain a food supply. At least in The Road Warrior, the machines & resources at their disposal didn't seem completely beyond their means.

FInally just before 40 minutes into the extended chase scene, we get some hint at a plot (mom-bod Theron's character is trying to escape with the breeders), but we still know nothing about the truck driver or why she's escaping exactly.

At this point, we have two leads we don't know trying to escape from a band of lunatics we know almost nothing about. Annnnd, Max finally gets that dumb mask off his face that seemingly served no purpose since it didn't prevent speech nor hinder vision to any great extent.

Annnnnnd, 3,000 gallons of gasoline!!!!!????? Annnnnd, Max has one of those magical guns that never expends all its bullets.

Valhalla? When and how and why did Norse mythology take hold on post apocalyptic desert dwellers in Australia?

Zoe Kravitz, LOL. Not out of place at all.

Why does Max have that weird accent? Rockatansky didn't even have an Australian accent in the theatrical release of Mad Max.

Oh look, more functional motorcycles, blackened faces, goggles, and steampunk outfits!

Somehow, it occurs to me, they have ALL that mechanical technology and gasoline and diesel fuel but not functional radios, LOL.

Annnnnnnd, epic chase scene number three is up. Mom-bod is injured! Will they make it through the pass??? Chase, chase, chase, fight, fight, fight!

They made it! And thousands of gallons of water (in the desert) flow yet again! Moral of the story? Who knows?

THIS is such a major departure from the Mad Max ethos and aesthetic, I would lump it in with Beyond Thunderdome and forget about it.

@MongoLloyd said:

mom-bod Theron

If Charlize Theron has "mom-bod" then a lot of guys must be having some very Oedipal fantasies.

Go for it. She's boring. She's always been boring.

@MongoLloyd said:

@Russ007 said:

@MongoLloyd said:

I watched the first 37 minutes and had to stop. Did anything happen besides non-stop chase scenes?

Other than being slightly cliché, I found that Max's character arc was most satisfying. So if you stop the film at 37 mins then you're not giving the film an honest chance.

Let's see... we start with a guy we don't know who eats a lizard ANNNND the chase is on. I know he's supposed to be Max Rockatansky, but I'd be willing to bet most 20-somethings who saw this and who seem to love it so much never saw the original Mad Max, so some form of character development would be helpful.

It's all about redemption. In Max's visions, we see all the people he couldn't rescue and it torments him to no end. He feels guilty (irrationally of course) that he couldn't have saved those who depended upon him and so he has intentionally become somewhat of a recluse because he doesn't want more blood on his own hands.

This is also why he is only looking out for himself at the start of the movie. That way he can't take blame since in his eyes it ain't his business. Throughout the film, we see Max gradually become more caring, trusting, and open: noticeably through his acceptance to finally communicate through speech.

Coming full circle with the theme of Max's redemption; the girls on-board the tanker presents a chance to amend his past. He believes that he can redeem himself by aiding them in their escape. By the end of the film, Max has succeeded as best he could (the pregnant woman did die) and has his redemption so that he can sleep quietly at night once again.

I'd also like to add that at the beginning the visions impeded Max when he was selfish, but towards the end they actually saved his life when he had decided to help others. Surely a sign that he knew he was making the ethically correct choice.

So yeah, most satisfying indeed.

@Russ007 said:

It's all about redemption. In Max's visions, we see all the people he couldn't rescue and it torments him to no end. He feels guilty

All what people? His wife and young daughter were killed by Toecutter et al and he failed to save them. There were no others.

Funny how Max had no visions whatsoever in The Road Warrior.