Badly directed.
-
yusef-ghanima — 11 years ago(October 08, 2014 05:15 AM)
the death of the night rider with prophetic face before he crash, the saw chance given in the end was the starting point for the saw movies, i didn't find it great, but it is much better than you think.
-
overmatik — 10 years ago(December 19, 2015 12:47 AM)
This film is a textbook on how to shoot an action movie. The stunts are nothing short of amazing and the action is above the norm for action movies. In any possible way a superior movie to the so acclaimed Fury Road.
-
gollumsmeagolrocks — 9 years ago(June 02, 2016 01:22 PM)
I don't think the movie is bad, but it's not a masterpiece. Even George Miller has admitted this on occasion. I don't think that for the same reasons stated above. The only problem I have with the movie is this.
The movie builds up the revenge and Max going crazy. But it should have happened earlier in the movie. It was no longer the main plot, which is a shame because it was rather brilliantly done, but more of a concluding subplot. All the buildup of his character earlier and his wife and his friend being murdered, and the bikers wrecking everything is fine! It can be in the film! I even think it should! But it shouldn't have lasted an entire hour and 15 mintues before he goes mad. I would've had all that stuff take 35-45 minutes, then Max would go mad for THE REST OF THE MOVIE which would be longer than a measly 15 minutes. For such a thematic, important plot point, in the actual film it lasts so little of the time. I think it should have really been a one man war against the biker dudes as opposed to a last stand. Because if it was a destructive personal war against them, lasting a longer portion of the movie, it would have really nailed the idea he was going as bad as them.
~NW~ -
Everardo_G — 11 years ago(October 13, 2014 12:16 AM)
You've got to be effing kidding me with this post the original Mad Max is a classic masterpiece!!! You really don't sound like you know how to judge movies. The cinematography in this movie was nothing but beautiful and for all they did on such a cheap budget beautiful stunt work and all. Mad Max was also responsible for setting off the post apocalyptic movie genre. And god how can you even say that about the score it sounds so similar to the style of a classic western soundtrack and fits so beautifully with the movie's action and suspense it's easily one of the best scores ever created. Jesus that was such a terrible read.
-
somethingtofear — 11 years ago(October 13, 2014 03:00 AM)
this movie is not a setting up for a post apocalyptic genre.first film has nothing to do with it.it was the secnond film did that which was a better film in every way.i cannot give more credit for just because second film has a setting up for the genre.
again first and second films are completely different.you do not need to watch the first film. if i knew that i wouldnt torture myself with first movie because it is a poorly directed piece of garbage which has a porn soundtrack. -
Elder_Yautija — 11 years ago(December 11, 2014 03:27 AM)
I don't agree with this one thing you said:
"I know t's filmed in 1979 but thats not an excuse for all of this, there are some pretty good action movies still holding up today."
I think that for the year it was released and for it's really tight budget this film it's a pretty damn good action/revenge film.
And I also think that most of the acting is above average, especially for today's standards.
The movie has its flaws, indeed, but I don't think these flaws make it half as bad as you see it. I would recommend you watch it again and put it in the context it belongs to. It will probably grow on you like it did with many other younger viewers. -
vojkan087 — 11 years ago(December 11, 2014 11:32 PM)
But the fact Mad Max is low budget Australian 1979 movie does make an excuse for most of those things you have there.
Score can't be from 80 cheesy dramas, since movie is 79.
I disagree stunt was terrible,Goose's crash was good enough, two motorcycles crash on a bridge with one being hit in the head by the sliding bike wastoo real.
The movie wasn't affraid of some radical approaches, like a brutal murder of a mother holding a child. You can't see that these days.
Cinematography and the whole desperate, chaotic tone to the entire movie was magnificient. You don't need instagram filters for a post apocalyptic feel to it.
Not many movies since were that tense, without the usual Hollywood predictability or conveniences, or the 2mil dollars huge scenes that suppose to showhow CG evolved?!
Mad Max is ultimate example of substance over form.
And the fact it all happened in 1979. makes this a classic. -
vojkan087 — 11 years ago(December 12, 2014 11:41 PM)
It may be crude at points but in no way was it poorly executed. You can say it was slow, or strangely paced, crude at times, that it made actors somehow stay out of focus, with the atmosphere and vehicles being true stars, but you can't say it was badly directed and shot.
And it isn't only a question of 1979. but also a budget. But even as a low budget movie, it presented many visionary ideas, introduced leather clad (anti)heroes and crazy creative villains, superb, borderline suicidal stunts, and set the tone for the Road Warrior where it redeemed itself entirely. There are very few amateur/low budget movies with such an impact, and that is why it deserves its fame, and I don't even see how is it overrated. We aren't talking about Shawshank Redemption after all. It has 7 on IMDB.
I don't see story not being explained to detal as a fault either. I feel the ambiguousness only adds up to the unsettling tone of the movie. You know its ''post apocalyptic'' world where the brutal police struggles with numerous and dangerous gangs in a wasteland of a world. That's enough for a simple story as this one. -
theycallmebrandon — 10 years ago(May 11, 2015 03:56 PM)
Rule #1 of a great post-apocalyptic/dystopian film/story is you NEVER explain the cause of it all.
You leave it to the imagination of the audience to speculate on. It makes it more interesting and frightening. -
buddyboy28 — 10 years ago(May 13, 2015 01:34 AM)
Rule #1 of a great post-apocalyptic/dystopian film/story is you NEVER explain the cause of it all.
You leave it to the imagination of the audience. It makes it much more interesting and frightening.
I kind of agree that this movie is very eerie and interesting because of the lack of explanation but George Miller broke your number one rule with Road Warrior and explained absolutely everything and it's still interesting and frightening and considered one of the very best post-apocalyptic movies.
Fly? Yes. Land? No. -
Kruleworld — 11 years ago(December 12, 2014 09:58 PM)
Most of them cut when the event happens.For example when somebody is goona die or crush the car it cuts and we see a huge eyeballs every single time.
I'm going to take you to task over this part. it's 1979, you can't show people being murdered or hit with a car like you can today. the censors gave this film a hard time as it was and it ended up with the highest R rating.
also consider if you're a doctor making your first film it aint going to be a masterpiece, especially if you have little budget to speak of.
Gimli: Youll find more cheer in a graveyard. -
somethingtofear — 11 years ago(December 13, 2014 02:43 AM)
mad max 1 was made at 1979 but road warrior which is a better movie than first one in every way made 1981, so dont show tehnology excuse for badly directed action scenes in first movie.It is really badly directed movie and i see no point to show excuses to justify it. Dont get me wrong i am not a hater, i loved road warrior and made me think how they could do first one better.
about the R rating i dont think first film rated R because of violence i think it is because of nudity. well when you think again there is more nudity than action scenes in first film. and i dont know should i piss that or enjoy with the view. -
ilon — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 03:34 PM)
Now i saw it first time and because of this i am gonna criticise it without nostalghia.
No. You are going to critize it without a context.
That means i am not giving extra credit for film's mistakes.
Nobody gives credit to a mistake, nobody.
score is too loud, some of the scenes i couldnt heard the dialouges.
Budget.
Actions scenes are not good enough.Most of them cut when the event happens.
Budget.
Stunt also terrible.
I'm sure you saw those stunts almost dying in the movie. Sure, it could've been terrible. Balls to the walls.
Script could have been improved.
Yes. So, what?
Max's revenge was totaly rushed and give nothing.
Rushed how? Did you mean that he should have gone mad before the family event? He should've been mad before his friends fatal accident? He should've been mad before the system through a loop let that biker free? He should have been mad before the bikers did something innapropiate?
It was like a trailer.
Isn't that what people like nowadays?
Acting medicore.
Did you expect Oscar caliber performance in an australian exploitation movie?
mad max 1 was made at 1979 but road warrior which is a better movie than first one in every way made 1981
650.000$ vs. 2.000.000$
dont show tehnology excuse for badly directed action scenes in first movie.
650.000$ vs. 2.000.000$
Obviously you didn't look close enough to realize how the scenes were shoot.
It is really badly directed movie
It is not.
Dont get me wrong i am not a hater, i loved road warrior and made me think how they could do first one better.
Your problem is the money, nothing else. You can't see talent, you can only see $$$. -
-
Kruleworld — 11 years ago(February 23, 2015 07:54 PM)
by
onuryavuzoglu
Low budget turned this film into a bad movie. It is not an excuse
I don't know why people know it's low budget but still expect it to be a slickly made hollywood production. i'd really like you to list some low budget films that you think live up to your expectation. Miller claimed the final budget was between $350,000 and $400,000. "Life of Brian" was considered (and looks) low budget at 4 million!
i'm not saying you have to like this movie, but don't think a low budget automatically makes it bad.
remember:
You get what you pay for
Its ridiculous to critique a movie with the argument 'it's not real, so it doesn't matter' -
taffysaur — 10 years ago(June 11, 2015 06:25 AM)
Did you expect Oscar caliber performance in an australian exploitation movie?
Actually, the actors that play Toecutter, the Boy, and the station manager are all classically trained Shakespearean actors. And yes, I learned that from this page's trivia section. ;0)
Really though, I think the acting's great,
especially
Toecutter.
I think most of the movie is great. Stunts are great. Acting's great. Aesthetic's great. Premise is great. Pacing is fine, and even the score is great, though I'll concede that it's too loud at times. A bigger budget would have afforded a better mix (didn't I also read that the movie was edited on a home-made suite in the director's living room..?)
I'll also agree that structurally it's a bit lop-sided. There are a few other niggling flaws too, but how many movies are perfect? I don't think anybody in this thread, at least, is arguing that Mad Max
is
perfect.
It's just a really nice, effective little low budget action-revenge flick.
"A little nonsense now and then
Is relished by the wisest men." -
sebaser — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 01:25 AM)
Yeah its terrible, just watched it. 3/10.
Generic revenge story with way too long setup, the revenge part happens in last 15 minutes.
I mostly know mad max form the second and third movie, and i now know why.
First one isnt yet set in any post apocalyptic world, and mostly takes place in what looks like a mix of modern detroid and any random tiny town.
Generic setting, mediocre acting, very bad plot, and 1h setup for a very disappointing conclusion. -
PrimeMinisterOfTheSinister — 11 years ago(December 14, 2014 08:37 PM)
The score is awful. It's like a cheesy soap opera score. The ending is pretty rushed, too. There's also a lot of mistakes like stunt cables being shown and the fake painted on front of the truck that hit's Toecutter and such. A lot of that can be excused by lack of budget and lack of experience, though. It was one of their fist movies. Not many people make a perfect movie right out of the gate. Anyone that says the stunt work in the movie is bad is absolutely daffy, though. That's just stupid.