I need it to be said at the start that “Mad Max: Fury Road”
is one of the greatest action cinematic achievements of the last 30
years. A taut, visceral, emotionally disorienting epic that overloads
the senses and leaves your jaw on the floor. There was nothing like it
before and there will be nothing like it after, and to approach “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga”
with the same mindset of game changing cinema would be a disservice to
the latter. While we have waited almost 10 years for a continuation of
the story, this prequel is best served by separation and not comparison.
I understand that they are intrinsically tied to one another, but going
into “Furiosa” with the hope of “Fury Road” will only lead to disappointment.
That’s not to say that this prequel is BAD; because it isn’t.
But
it is a wholly different type of film, existing within the same world
but clearly set on telling a different story altogether as well as
utilizing a different visual form to tell said story. What transpires is
a bigger, longer, and sometimes uncut spectacle blockbuster, the kind
that doesn’t quite revolutionize the genre but most certainly begs
others to do better.
I need to be clear: I wanted to love “Furiosa.” I had some trepidation when it comes to the cinematography and shot composition, particularly given the absence of John Seale, whose unmatched visual flare breathed life into “Fury Road,”
and composited an otherworldly visual style often imitated but never
duplicated. I was really hoping his absence wouldn’t be felt, but Simon Duggan is not Seale, and the difference in shot composition choices are quite literally a decade apart.
Ever
since the first trailer dropped, I’ve been highlighting the different
in cinematography and how unnecessarily vibrant and CGI effects heavy it
all looked. I was chastised often for having these comparisons, with
people swearing up and down it looks exactly the same and that my eyes
were deceiving me. And sure, if “Fury Road” didn’t exist, you’d
be right. But it does, and for all its grandeur and escalating scale
and scope of its expository filmmaking, one can’t help but recognize
that it is in fact a step back in execution and visuals. It’s far more
than just different eyes; “Furiosa” looks bad in a lot of places, many of which are far more noticeable than they ever should be.
See, I’m well aware of the VFX used in “Fury Road,” and make no blinding nostalgic claim that everything was practical. Far from it, but it is so beautifully crafted and extraordinarly executed that you don’t really notice the VFX as they serve to enhance the practical, stunt heavy filmmaking. “Furiosa” sadly reverses this, relying heavily on the former in exchange for the latter. That’s not to say there aren’t practical effects and stuntwork in this prequel. There are in spades, just that the VFX stand out like a sore thumb instead of enhance the practical work that is being done. Duggan just doesn’t seem to understand how to layer his VFX over practical work, instead substituting digital hues for entire scenes that just don’t need them. I’m not an idiot, I know that Anya Taylor-Joy wasn’t actually underneath a moving war rig in the desert kicking a running motorcycle off of a tire during an epic chase scene Obviously, there’s some Hollywood magic going on. But for reasons unexplained, there is a 5-8 second sequence of a group of warboys walking along the top of the war rig that is ALL digital. There isn’t a single real thing happening in this shot, and there’s just no reason for this.
It’s the substitution of VFX for things that don’t need it and the lack of grit in every shot that sadly holds “Furiosa”
back from being great. Again, I was hoping it was just a trailer, but
this film is much, much longer than its counterpart which allows for far
more opportunities show your hand. It just doesn’t have that
breathtaking, once in a lifetime visceral experience that drew us back
into the wasteland, and after 9 years of waiting you would think that it
would look better, not worse.
Thankfully, “Furiosa” has George Miller
at the helm, who for all the faults of his companions strives to expand
the world he clearly has a passion for, and delve deep into his
creation for nearly 40 years. Miller clearly understands visual
storytelling, the kind that only a master can accomplish. Even when it
isn’t ranked among his best, it is still better than most entries into
the blockbuster action genre. “Furiosa” is Miller’s passion
project, and given the long string of lackluster masters indulging their
worst tendencies (here’s looking at you Chazel and “Babylon“) things could be a lot worse than some less than stellar visuals that can’t hold up to revolutionary outings.
Anya Taylor-Joy is exquisite as always, brilliantly channeling Charlize Theron, and embodying Furiosa with stoic vengeance and unfettered blood thirst for revenge. Despite her not showing up for nearly 45 minutes, she makes the most of every single scene she’s in. “Furiosa” opts to use the titular character as the Mad Max stand in, making the story primarily about her but choosing to focus on the chaotic world that she is forced to navigate. The stakes are lowered though because we know that she lives through every trial and tribulation thrown at her, and “Furiosa” doesn’t give us enough side characters to care about to distract us from this fact. So what ends up transpiring is a sometimes meandering, sometimes riveting story that unfolds with a foregone conclusion and zero surprises. Chris Hemsworth‘s Dementus is delightfully unhinged, serving as the perfect kind of foil and zealot that would contribute to killing the world and creating chaos. He’s having an absolute blast in “Furiosa,” relishing in his over the top performance while being the perfect foil for the undeterred heroine.
Outside of those two though, there just aren’t enough interesting characters in “Furiosa” to round out the intrigue and investment in the bloated, sometimes plodding pacing and narrative. Tom Burke’s Praetorian Jack is introduced so late and with so little development that his introduction, relationship, and ultimate demise (sorry, spoilers but also he’s not in “Fury Road” so like, is it really that shocking?) that you never get a chance to care about him. He exists only to answer questions we didn’t ask about Furiosa herself; how did she lose her arm? Why is she the Praetorian charged with the war rig? How did she rise so far in the ranks? Why does she care about Immortal Joe’s wives? and on and on, answering uninteresting questions until we feel like we know everything about her. Except, “Furiosa” doesn’t always answer the right questions we didn’t ask, and Burke’s character is a prime example of an afterthought inserted to provide resolution to something we didn’t need to be resolved.
Do we learn more about the Wasteland? Absolutely. Do we reframe the world in a way that paves the path for Furiosa to exist and be the epic heroine we all love? Most certainly. Does it provide a great villain and paint the tragedy of her life and loss and she crosses the deserts for revenge? Hell yeah. “Furiosa” does a lot right even if its doesn’t nail everything, namely the performances from its two leads and some genuinely eye popping action set pieces. When they aren’t ruined by VFX that looks rendered straight from a PS3 game, “Furiosa” is simply marvelous. Miller knows action, knows where the camera needs to be to capture the best of his practical sets, knows how to frame that practical approach, and fully understands how to immerse viewers into a wild world of rolling dunes and roaring vehicles. But where “Fury Road” felt wholly unique, “Furiosa” feels more of the same and not as good, plodding along with its exposition heavy dialogue and strange pacing that never quite feels as cohesive and taut as all that came before it.
I really liked “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” I just didn’t love it. I won’t be thinking about this film for a decade despite some astounding visuals and incredible action spectacles. Lightning in a bottle just doesn’t strike twice, and maybe we shouldn’t ask “Furiosa” to bare that burden. If you do, then I think you’ll be disappointed. If you try your best not to, you’ll still be a bit let down but can find the good buried underneath the regressive visual styling. It is still a terrific watch, one that needs to be seen in theaters. You just won’t be able to experience any of the “Holy Shit” moments the same on your small screen at home with your Iphone in hand. “Furiosa,” for all its faults, deserves a theatrical viewing. Witness me in its truest form, it is a film that is both furthered and hindered by its spectacle and thirst for bigger, louder, but not always better action storytelling.
“Furiosa” very well may be one of the best prequels ever made, but that’s objectively a low bar to clear and doesn’t need a whole lot to earn that moniker. It explains so much, but not necessarily things we actually wanted to know. Furiosa is an incredible heroine that deserves to be witnessed and expanded upon, but just not in the way that “Furiosa” opts to tell that story. Miller takes some wild, bold swings that sometimes land and the fact that he’s out here at 80 years of age still trying to test the limits action storytelling deserves to be applauded. There is a whole sequence with parachutes and motorcycles that is just some of the most astounding stunt work and jaw dropping action you’ve ever seen, juxtaposed by some of the worst visual effects on display in cinema this big. I just don’t know that “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is the entry that demonstrates that the best and furthers the story in all the ways we may have hoped after 10 years of waiting.
We are still awaiting, and hope to be witnessed in Valhalla. “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” comes close to delivering the sort of witness me epic we’ve hope would deliver a lovely day, but in the end falters to becomes just another run of the war rig.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars (Source By: nerdbot .com)
“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theaters. You can watch the trailer below.
CLICK ON LINKS BELOW TO DOWNLOAD
Furiosa A Mad Max Saga 2024.mp4