Movies: Mad Max: Furiosa (2024)

[Raging Bull]

Sounds like it's every bit as good as Fury Road. 7 minute standing ovation at Cannes for Taylor-Joy.

 

[I am not exposed]

BBC writer only gave it 3 out of 5.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga review: 'More exhausting than exhilarating'

"The dizzying circus stunts and pedal-to-the-metal drag-racing are still spectacular" – but Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is "more exhausting than exhilarating".

www.bbc.com

But then this reviewer thought the franchise started in 81....

And the BBC did give the Force Awakens 5 out of 5.

 

[johnjm22]

Box Office Meltdown: ‘Garfield’ Claims Victory Over ‘Furiosa’ With Worst No. 1 Memorial Day Opening in Three Decades

The bad news doesn't end there: overall revenue for the four-day holiday also hits a 29-year low and is down a steep 36 percent from last year.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Osprey]

It's projected to make less than even The Fall Guy did in its opening weekend (not counting Memorial Day). That's not good, especially since it cost more to make and likely more to market.

This is reminding me of Solo: A Star Wars Story. Obviously, there's the similar title, but both are prequels that no one asked for, feature new actors playing the titular characters and greatly underperformed.

 

[Blender]

It's projected to make less than even The Fall Guy did in its opening weekend. Considering that it also cost more to make and likely more to market, it may end up an even bigger flop.

This is reminding me of Solo: A Star Wars Story. They have very similar titles, both are prequels that no one asked for, both feature new actors playing the titular characters and both greatly underperformed.

Both critic and audience scores/reviews seem very good for it, though not as good as Fury Road. It's likely that it will not do great in theaters but do well on VOD and streaming.

Fury Road didn't do great at the box office either really, though better than Furiosa so far.

 

[johnjm22]

It's projected to make less than even The Fall Guy did in its opening weekend (not counting Memorial Day). That's not good, especially since it cost more to make and likely more to market.

This is reminding me of Solo: A Star Wars Story. Obviously, there's the similar title, but both are prequels that no one asked for, feature new actors playing the titular characters and greatly underperformed.

It would have been so much more interesting if this was a sequel.

We catch up with characters of Fury Road 5 years later or something. With Charlize Theron as Furiosa.

Prequels are inherently less interesting.

 

[Raekwon]

A bit of a step down from fury road but still a good watch imo

 

[Osprey]

Fury Road didn't do great at the box office either really, though better than Furiosa so far.

Fury Road, at best, only broke even at the box office. That's likely why a sequel was never made and makes it more puzzling that they decided to make a prequel (which are inherently less interesting, as johnjm22 just said) that cost the same and doesn't even feature Mad Max. It seems that they really banked on the growing reputation of the last movie to bring people out who didn't come out before and really misjudged.

 

[johnjm22]

I think the poor box office showing is primarily due to dwindling interest in going to the movie theater.

I bet lots of people saw the ads for this and thought: "That looks cool. I'll just watch it on streaming."

And I have to admit, I felt the same way. I saw Fury Road in IMAX, but I just didn't feel the need to do the same with Furiosa.

On a side note, I have no idea why the film industry hasn't figured out that these movies are too long. Everybody complains about it. You're just making moviegoers more hesitant because they have to take more time out of the day to see your movie.

 

[HanSolo]

I liked it but it serves way better as a mere primer for Fury Road which is arguably one of the best action movies of the past decade. Like you could do a double header with Furiosa first but you don't need to do a double either.

The action is good and continues Miller's creativity with the road war action. Hemsworth absolutely eats his role. Anya Taylor-Joy does a pretty decent Charlize impersonation that I wasn't expecting.

It's just that I don't feel like this story needed to be told. Fury Road teases you just enough with sprinkles of a backstory and it adds some color and character to an otherwise pure action thrill ride. This is Miller shifting the focus to the backstory with familiar Mad Max: Fury Road action to keep it exciting. The difference is, having just walked out of the theater, I doubt there are going to be many highlight moments that will stick with my like with Fury Road.

Still a fun action movie and it's a shame that it's struggling at the box office.

 

[CDJ]

Do I need to watch any of the mad max’s to watch this?

 

[alko]

Do I need to watch any of the mad max’s to watch this?

Yes. Every one. Twice at least.

 

[Osprey]

I think the poor box office showing is primarily due to dwindling interest in going to the movie theater.

I bet lots of people saw the ads for this and thought: "That looks cool. I'll just watch it on streaming."

I'm sure that that's part of it, but it's also greatly underperforming compared to other recent movies. Dune: Part Two, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and Kung Fu Panda 4 have each made over $500M in the past few months. Even Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes and Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (which flopped) made about twice as much in their opening weekends as Furiosa. Interest in going to the theater is down overall, but interest in Furiosa is especially low for likely a variety of reasons (prequel, new actors, obvious CGI, demographics, etc.).

 

[beowulf]

Was going to see this yesterday but my brother had my nephews called me asking uncle to come and watch the Garfield movie with them...grrrr guess I'll have to find the time this week

 

[Osprey]

The Critical Drinker really enjoyed it, but also critiques it and speculates why it's not doing better.

 

[HanSolo]

The Critical Drinker really enjoyed it, but also critiques it and speculates why it's not doing better.

I find his takes hit or miss but I'd agree with most of what he said here. I think he's over focusing on the use of Mad Max in the title. Did it need to use the name of the franchise? No, Logan didn't need to rebrand to be called Logan: an X-Men Story. But at the end of the day it's just a moniker identifying it's part of the Mad Max franchise despite not being about Mad Max himself. I don't think the use of the brand name necessitates the story be about the titular character.

One critique he didn't touch on while praising the midway point war rig battle is that the musical score for that scene was pretty...lame? I can't think of a better word for it. Mad Max FR had this sweeping and tense orchestral music underscoring a lot of the action and yeah the movie repeated the main action theme a few too many times, but it's an effective enough theme that it really doesn't hurt the experience. Here, the best action sequence in the movie had really muted and unexciting scoring so you're left with a lot of lulls where there's noise but no music driving the action. That's not to say that you need music like Fury Road had to have effective action, but if you're going to set a standard in one film, I feel like you should do something similar in the sequel. Doesn't have to be and shouldn't be the same music but it still felt underwhelming.

 

[johnjm22]

I'm sure that that's part of it, but it's also greatly underperforming compared to other recent movies. Dune: Part Two, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and Kung Fu Panda 4 have each made over $500M in the past few months. Even Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes and Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (which flopped) made about twice as much in their opening weekends as Furiosa. Interest in going to the theater is down overall, but interest in Furiosa is especially low for likely a variety of reasons (prequel, new actors, obvious CGI, demographics, etc.).

I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.

Those other movies aren't rated R, so it's hard to compare them. A lot of them appeal to kids as well.

 

[HanSolo]

I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.

Those other movies aren't rated R, so it's hard to compare them. A lot of them appeal to kids as well.

And I think it's worth taking into account that it's been ten years since Fury Road. I really believe that a big reason why films are struggling in the theaters is the over abundant access to movies available on streaming and how quickly films are streamable after its theatrical run. I mean Dune 2 was in theaters recently and it's already available at no extra cost if you have a Max account. The cost of a movie ticket these days before concessions could get you a month with any streaming service where you'll have access to a host of movies and shows to watch.

I personally was going to skip Furiosa until I saw it got good reviews. I'm definitely part of the problem in finding it a lot more convenient to watch movies at home on demand. I look at the slate of movies past Furiosa and don't see a single thing I'd want to spend 15-20 dollars to go see. I've gotten to a point where unless it's a movie that is best experienced on the big screen with theater audio, I don't bother.

I'd imagine some of that is impacting Furiosa here, but it could also be just as much an issue that the trailers betrayed how much more CGI was used vs Fury Road which was a practical effects spectacle. Add in a premise of a story that didn't really need to be told, and I can see why people would want to skip even with positive reviews. Personally, I think if they'd made a true Fury Road sequel with the same practical effects and actors, it would do better. Or maybe audiences have finally combined the streaming convenience with general apathy towards prequels, sequels, remakes, and reboots.

 

[Osprey]

I find his takes hit or miss but I'd agree with most of what he said here. I think he's over focusing on the use of Mad Max in the title. Did it need to use the name of the franchise? No, Logan didn't need to rebrand to be called Logan: an X-Men Story. But at the end of the day it's just a moniker identifying it's part of the Mad Max franchise despite not being about Mad Max himself. I don't think the use of the brand name necessitates the story be about the titular character.

He mentions the title only twice and I think that his point is that audiences want to see Max in a "Mad Max" movie, not necessarily because it's in the title, but because it's in the name of the franchise.

I'm looking at it relative to its predecessor which did 45M (60M inflation adjusted) in a normal opening weekend. I think Furiosa underperforming it has mostly to do with consumer habits. The other reasons you mentioned probably contribute, but this movie still has way more hype than Fury Road did upon opening IMO.

I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.

Also, it was only two years ago that a male-targeted movie with an emphasis on practical filmmaking (Top Gun: Maverick) grossed $1.5B. That's the type of movie that Fury Road was, so the appeal for that still seems to be there, perhaps even more than a decade ago. I think that a sequel starring Tom Hardy and emphasizing practical effects again would've done a lot better. Instead, they made a movie that seems to follow trends rather than buck them and, since it doesn't stand out as much, a lot of people are adding it to their "wait to stream" lists, IMO.

 

[johnjm22]

I really believe that a big reason why films are struggling in the theaters is the over abundant access to movies available on streaming and how quickly films are streamable after its theatrical run. I mean Dune 2 was in theaters recently and it's already available at no extra cost if you have a Max account. The cost of a movie ticket these days before concessions could get you a month with any streaming service where you'll have access to a host of movies and shows to watch.

Two adult IMAX tickets at my theater cost $50.38

I read online that the average moviegoer spends $15 on concessions.

So $80 plus gas to see a movie that will be on streaming for free or a fraction of the cost in a few months.

 

[HanSolo]

Two adult IMAX tickets at my theater cost $50.38

I read online that the average moviegoer spends $15 on concessions.

So $80 plus gas to see a movie that will be on streaming for free or a fraction of the cost in a few months.

Pretty much unfortunately. Plus the better home projector systems get, the less the "big screen" is incentivized.

He mentions the title only twice and I think that his point is that audiences want to see Max in a "Mad Max" movie, not necessarily because it's in the title, but because it's in the name of the franchise.

I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.

Also, it was only two years ago that a male-targeted movie with an emphasis on practical filmmaking (Top Gun: Maverick) grossed $1.5B. That's the type of movie that Fury Road was, so the appeal for that still seems to be there, perhaps even more than a decade ago. I think that a sequel starring Tom Hardy and emphasizing practical effects again would've done a lot better. Instead, they made a movie that seems to follow trends rather than buck them and, since it doesn't stand out as much, a lot of people are adding it to their "wait to stream" lists, IMO.

His grievance sounded more like it was leveraged to draw in audiences to watch Mad Max but they weren't fooled and knew it would just be about Furiosa. But that's neither here nor there. I think at the end of the day I have to wholeheartedly agree that this was a well done movie with a story that didn't need to be told. I felt the same way about Solo but I'm one of the few that actually looked past the pointlessness of the story and am able to have fun with it on rewatches.

 

[x Tame Impala]

It seemed like another unnecessary extension of a previously successful IP. I expected this one to have nowhere near the level of soul so it’s not surprising it’s tanking.

Movies are expensive but I’d say that’s a smaller factor in why the movie isn’t doing well. I think most people just don’t care about another unoriginal movie IP and aren’t dying to go see this one. It’s not “must see” like Dune 2 was

 

[Osprey]

I feel that studios are shooting themselves in the foot by releasing movies so soon to VOD/streaming. They're reacting to their underperformance at the box office and trying to recoup their losses sooner, but it just encourages more moviegoers to wait to see them, which leads to more underperformance. It's a snowball effect. Despite how much I love being able to watch movies at home only a month or two later, I think that studios need to go back to making us wait a lot longer than that. If we knew that we wouldn't be able to watch Furiosa or any other upcoming Summer movie until Fall at the earliest, many of us would probably be a lot more inclined to go to the theater.

That's how it was when I was young. If I missed a movie in the theater, I had to wait 6 months before it came out on VHS and a whole year before it was on HBO or Showtime. Because of that, I tried to go to as many movies as I could. Also, I went to many more than once because I knew that I wouldn't get a chance to re-watch an awesome movie like T2 or Jurassic Park for at least 6 months. I'm not saying that studios should go back to wait times that are that long, but I think that, say, a 4-month wait between theater and streaming release dates might eventually help get people back into theaters.

 

[johnjm22]

I think that it's the other way around, that the movie being less appealing has more to do with it underperforming. Consider that Godzilla (2014) made $529M, Kong: Skull Island (2017) made $568M, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) made $387M, Godzilla vs Kong (2021) made $470M and Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire made $566M. Consumer habits seemingly haven't affected the Monsterverse all that much in the last decade. You can argue that it is going down when you factor in inflation, but those films have still maintained most of their appeal.

Also, it was only two years ago that a male-targeted movie with an emphasis on practical filmmaking (Top Gun: Maverick) grossed $1.5B. That's the type of movie that Fury Road was, so the appeal for that still seems to be there, perhaps even more than a decade ago. I think that a sequel starring Tom Hardy and emphasizing practical effects again would've done a lot better. Instead, they made a movie that seems to follow trends rather than buck them and, since it doesn't stand out as much, a lot of people are adding it to their "wait to stream" lists, IMO.

You have a point.

Imagine if it was an all new Mad Max story staring Mel Gibson. I would've been excited as hell for that. Instead Furiosa looked like a discount version Fury Road; more of the same but not as good.

I just watched Grace Randolph's box office analysis and she mentioned despite having a female action lead, women did not come out to see the movie. The vast majority of the audience was male.

It's hard to compare anything to Maverick or even Kong/Godzilla. Every franchise might be affected differently. After Top Gun Maverick did so well, we all thought Mission Impossible (also placing an emphasis on practical FX) was gonna kill it, and it ended up disappointing at the box office.

I think you have outlier movies like Dune II and Maverick, and movies that people will take their kids/family to. Most other stuff will have a hard time doing well at the theater.

 

[Osprey]

Imagine if it was an all new Mad Max story staring Mel Gibson. I would've been excited as hell for that.

So would I. You've probably seen this, especially if you watched the video that I linked above, but this concept art has been floating around in the last few days.

I would be excited and go to the theater for that.

I just watched Grace Randolph's box office analysis and she mentioned despite having a female action lead, women did not come out to see the movie. The vast majority of the audience was male.

That's no surprise, since the vast majority of the fanbase is male. Hollywood has been doing this a lot lately, taking franchises that appeal mostly to men and thinking that opening them up to women will make them even more popular and profitable, but it tends to backfire when women don't show interest and men lose interest.