The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
MCN Blogs

By DP30 david@thehotbuttonl.com

George Miller… Max Is Back (trailer… and also, a 2011 DP/30 with Dr. Miller)

6 Responses to “George Miller… Max Is Back (trailer… and also, a 2011 DP/30 with Dr. Miller)”

  1. Bulldog68 says:

    The remakes of of our favorite movies have been so underwhelming but the trailer looks really well done. Hope the movie delivers. The landscape looks beautifully shot and seems to be true character of the movie.

  2. amblinman says:

    The difference with this remake is the original filmmaker is involved. George Miller is a genius and I wish he had been more prolific in his career. He deserved Spielberg/Cameron levels of success and acclaim.

    Of course good or bad this film will probably be ignored by the American public as it has no Transformers or superheroes in it.

  3. The Pope says:

    I have hopes for this film. I really enjoyed the first two films as a teenager but… while I know they’re selling to the action/Mad Max audience I get the feeling from the trailer that there is little to nothing else there. Theron looks incredible. Hardy is always a charismatic draw. But I beleive if there was a big emotional/thematic hook they would have placed it in the trailer. But what we get is 2.44 of repeated imagery. Great imagery, but it is on repeat.

    Like I said, I have hopes for this film. I really do.

  4. leahnz says:

    er why does nobody have an astraaain accent mate? i don’t get it, when does this take place, can’t be after silly Thunderdome so after Mad Max and before II or after II but before he spins the wheel and makes a deal with tina turner? or is it just reboot city? (does Miller explain this in the vid, i can watch it now — i was kind of hoping this one would be the feral kid grown up, taking over max’s mantle rather than a redo of max himself, which seems bizarre)

    hard to tell just from a trailer but it looks too overblown and operatic, why do the older grey-haired dudes tend to come down with RSS (Ridley Scott Syndrome) and go all ott and melodrama bombastic instead of lean and mean like a fighting machine

  5. Chris says:

    “The difference with this remake is the original filmmaker is involved.”

    Then how do you explain Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Star Wars eps I – III, Blues Brothers 2000, Rocky V, The Godfather Part III, etc etc?

    Plus this ain’t a remake, definitely more of a sequel.

    Still, this trailer is wild. I hope the movie is good.

  6. doug r says:

    I heard tell it’s set between the end of 1 and the start of 2.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies

How do you make a Top Ten list? For tax and organizational purposes, I keep a log of every movie I see (Title, year, director, exhibition format, and location the film was viewed in). Anything with an asterisk to the left of its title means it’s a 2014 release (or something I saw at a festival which is somehow in play for the year). If there’s a performance, or sequence, or line of dialogue, even, that strikes me in a certain way, I’ll make a note of it. So when year end consideration time (that is, the month and change out of the year where I feel valued) rolls around, it’s a little easier to go through and pull some contenders for categories. For 2014, I’m voting in three polls: Indiewire, SEFCA (my critics’ guild), and the Muriels. Since Indiewire was first, it required the most consternation. There were lots of films that I simply never had a chance to see, so I just went with my gut. SEFCA requires a lot of hemming and hawing and trying to be strategic, even though there’s none of the in-person skullduggery that I hear of from folk whose critics’ guild is all in the same city. The Muriels is the most fun to contribute to because it’s after the meat market phase of awards season. Also, because it’s at the beginning of next year, I’ll generally have been able to see everything I wanted to by then. I love making hierarchical lists, partially because they are so subjective and mercurial. Every critical proclamation is based on who you are at that moment and what experiences you’ve had up until that point. So they change, and that’s okay. It’s all a weird game of timing and emotional waveforms, and I’m sure a scientist could do an in-depth dissection of the process that leads to the discovery of shocking trends in collective evaluation. But I love the year end awards crush, because I feel somewhat respected and because I have a wild-and-wooly work schedule that has me bouncing around the city to screenings, or power viewing the screeners I get sent.
Jason Shawhan of Nashville Scene Answers CriticWire