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 »

“I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how many recappers, while clearly over their heads, are baseline sympathetic to finding themselves routinely unmoored, even if that means repeating over and over that this is closer to “avant-garde art” than  normal TV to meet the word count. My feed was busy connecting the dots to Peter Tscherkassky (gas station), Tony Conrad (the giant staring at feedback of what we’ve just seen), Pat O’Neill (bombs away) et al., and this is all apposite — visual and conceptual thinking along possibly inadvertent parallel lines. If recappers can’t find those exact reference points to latch onto, that speaks less to willful ignorance than to how unfortunately severed experimental film is from nearly all mainstream discussions of film because it’s generally hard to see outside of privileged contexts (fests, academia, the secret knowledge of a self-preserving circle working with a very finite set of resources and publicity access to the larger world); resources/capital/access/etc. So I won’t assign demerits for willful incuriosity, even if some recappers are reduced, in some unpleasantly condescending/bluffing cases, to dismissing this as a “student film” — because presumably experimentation is something the seasoned artist gets out of their system in maturity, following the George Lucas Model of graduating from Bruce Conner visuals to Lawrence Kasdan’s screenwriting.”
~ Vadim Rizov Goes For It, A Bit

“On the first ‘Twin Peaks,’ doing TV was like going from a mansion to a hut. But the arthouses are gone now, so cable television is a godsend — they’re the new art houses. You’ve got tons of freedom to do the work you want to do on TV, but there is a restriction in terms of picture and sound. The range of television is restricted. It’s hard for the power and the glory to come through. In other words, you can have things in a theater much louder and also much quieter. With TV, the quieter things have to be louder and the louder things have to be quieter, so you have less dynamics. The picture quality — it’s fine if you have a giant television with a good speaker system, but a lot of people will watch this on their laptops or whatever, so the picture and the sound are going to suffer big time. Optimally, people should be watching TV in a dark room with no disturbances and with as big and good a picture as possible and with as great sound as possible.”
~ David Lynch