On M List of Movie Reviews

(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)

---

Mad Max (1979)

Rate: 5
Viewed: 7/04, 7/07, 6/21

7/07: I wish I can say Mad Max is entertaining, but it's tedious.

The best parts occur in the first fifteen and the last twenty minutes. The middle hour is dull to get through, causing me to fall asleep. Most of the dialogue is painful to listen to. There isn't much of a story, either. However, I have to admit the stunts for the action sequences are legendary and groundbreaking.

Unfortunately, Mel Gibson is average, but that's okay. He's more memorable as Martin Riggs and William Wallace. Instead, Hugh Keays-Byrne is the show.

All in all, it's the mind-blowing stunts that cemented Mad Max's reputation.

6/21: The one that put Mel Gibson on Hollywood map, Mad Max is a dated dystopian movie.

It's slow, there's hardly a plot, and everybody is a mental midget, having to scream constantly. The spectacular action, however little, is often cheated by the shoddy editing which explains how the kid mysteriously disappeared. Dulling my senses, Mad Max takes a while to get to the conflict; once it happens, the movie is almost over.

Mel Gibson is okay, but he's too clean-cut to believe. If his character is supposed to be "mad" after what happened to his wife and baby, I don't see it. Ironically, Hugh Keays-Byrne steals the show as Toecutter and has the best lines of anyone.

Like El Mariachi and The Blair Witch Project, Mad Max holds the distinction of having one of the highest profit-to-cost ratio ever, grossing over $100 million against a budget of approximately $350,000. The enusuing sequel would be The Road Warrior which exceeded all expectations.

All in all, Mad Max may have been something else during the late 70's, but it hasn't aged well.

---