MAD MAX: FURY ROAD Trailer – Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron Bring the Madness, Plus a More Detailed Plot Synopsis and Character Description

by     Posted 147 days ago

mad-max-fury-road-trailer

Warner Bros. has released the first Mad Max: Fury Road trailer for director George Miller’s highly anticipated fourth installment in the Mad Max franchise.  The post-apocalyptic actioner sees Tom Hardy filling the role of Max, a man seeking peace following the loss of his wife and child, while Charlize Theron plays Furiosa, a woman who aims to survive by trekking across the desert back to her homeland.  You’ll have to watch this trailer a few times, not to glean any plot details but just to catch bits and pieces of the insanity on display.  It’s certainly in line with the madness of the previous films, though it remains to be seen whether or not Hardy can fill Mel Gibson’s spiked boots because he’s incapacitated for the most part of this first look.  Still, there’s lots to be excited for – car crashes, insane leather fetishes, slavers, open-desert high-speed chases, two-headed geckos, etc – especially after such a long delay.

Hit the jump to watch the Mad Max: Fury Road trailer, and click here to read our full recap of the film’s Comic-Con panel.  The film also stars Nicholas Hoult, Riley KeoughZoe Kravitz, Courtney EatonRosie Huntington-WhiteleyHugh Keays-ByrneNathan Jones, and Abbey Lee Kershaw.  Mad Max: Fury Road opens on May 15, 2015. Trailer via WB:

If that trailer isn’t enough to satisfy you, then click here for all of our Mad Max: Fury Road coverage, or sample some recent links below:

Here’s the new-and-improved synopsis for Mad Max: Fury Road:

Haunted by his turbulent past, Mad Max believes the best way to survive is to wander alone. Nevertheless, he becomes swept up with a group fleeing across the Wasteland in a War Rig driven by an elite Imperator, Furiosa. They are escaping a Citadel tyrannized by the Immortan Joe, from whom something irreplaceable has been taken. Enraged, the Warlord marshals all his gangs and pursues the rebels ruthlessly in the high-octane Road War that follows.

“Mad Max: Fury Road”—the fourth in the franchise’s history—stars Tom Hardy (“The Dark Knight Rises”) in the title role, alongside Oscar winner Charlize Theron (“Monster,” “Prometheus”) as the Imperator, Furiosa. The film also stars Nicholas Hoult (“X-Men: Days of Future Past”) as Nux; Hugh Keays-Byrne (“Mad Max”, “Sleeping Beauty”) as Immortan Joe; and Nathan Jones (“Conan the Barbarian”) as Rictus Erectus. Collectively known as The Wives, Zoë Kravitz (“Divergent”) plays Toast, Riley Keough (“Magic Mike”) is Capable, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (“Transformers: Dark of the Moon”) is Splendid. They are joined by supermodel Abbey Lee as The Dag and Courtney Eaton as Fragile, both of whom are making their big screen debuts. Also featured in the movie are Josh Helman as Slit, Jennifer Hagan as Miss Giddy, and singer/songwriter/performer iOTA as Coma-Doof Warrior. The cast is rounded out by well-known Australian actors John Howard and Richard Carter, supermodel Megan Gale, Angus Sampson, Joy Smithers, Gillian Jones, Melissa Jaffer and Melita Jurisic.

mad max poster charlize theron




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • lobtaylor

    Wow ,Tom Hardy looks bad ass as hell!

  • jk

    Looking forward to this!

  • AssKegels

    Can’t. Fucking. Wait!

  • brNdon

    Sucks to see him lose his interceptor again, but it still looks badass nonetheless.

  • appolox

    Ahhhhhh memories……

  • http://thedodgy.com/ Liffey

    A better sequel would have been to have Mel Gibson return as an older Max and continue that story. And include that Gyro pilot dude.

    • Elcoolguy

      They already asked Gibson and he declined.

    • computerbenefit

      You really think any studio would let Mel Gibson lead a 100 million dollar plus blockbuster at this point of his career? Even if it’s Mad Max?

    • MJ

      I agree 100%. Should have made it a father-son movie with Mel and Hardy. Would have opened it up for more of an original story, and not tried to remake a movie that is so good that it should never get a remake.

      • cityonfire.com

        Are you kidding me? You must own A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD.

      • lord jim

        it´s not a remake it´s a sequel, this is mad max 4.besides mad max travels alone since his wife was murdered, he doesn´t need a sidekick.
        but yeah, they should have made it with mel gibson, mel gibson is mad max, it´s only his character, mel gibson IS mad max.(and i really like tom hardy who is an excellent actor, but why would anybody take an actor if you can have the real thing?)

      • lord jim

        it´s not a remake it´s a sequel, this is mad max 4.besides mad max travels alone since his wife was murdered, he doesn´t need a sidekick.
        but yeah, they should have made it with mel gibson, mel gibson is mad max, it´s only his character, mel gibson IS mad max.(and i really like tom hardy who is an excellent actor, but why would anybody take an actor if you can have the real thing?)

    • suave

      Some people just can’t let go of the past

      • lord jim

        yeah, like people who want to make another mad max movie and people who want to see another mad max movie.count me in, eventough they took tom hardy to play mad max instead od taking mad max himself.

  • MJ

    They just re-made Road Warrior, and put in a lot of “prettier” special effects. For example, why in the hell are all the bombs multicolored like kid’s balloons?

    A Max Max movie should not need CGI.

    Meh.

    • scheebles

      While the plot sounds almost exactly like The Road Warrior, I’m willing to bet this is a red herring and that the “object taken” angle will be of more importance.

      As for your other criticisms, it looks like there is a nice balance of CGI and practical effects. Some of those collisions were amazingly realistic. And the “bombs” were flares.

      • MJ

        They must have got multi-colored “party flares” then from their local party store….whatever they are, the look of of place. And the whole thing just looks more clean and cool then it is suppose to. The first two movies were gritty and low budget, which probably reflects what a real post-apocalypse world would actually look like.

        Just look at the still photo above — you can see all the worn road tracks from the rehearsal runs, etc…perfectly straight, and with carefully tilled veins of loose dirt and sand to give them that dust effect background when the vehicles pass over….looks like a dirt multi-lane freeway that has been carefully tilled by dust gardeners…completely unrealistic…what the F?

        There is a reason this movie has been delayed 1.5 years…don’t kid yourselves. It’s Depp’s Chocolate Factory all over again — some movies are so nearly perfect, they don’t remakes. I think George Miller is just cashing in for his retirement fund here. Very sad.

      • scheebles

        You’re cracking me up. Perhaps those are the villains who are *SHOCKING* following the tracks of the caravan.

        You don’t think maybe George Miller has been trying to make this movie forever and was giddy to make a Mad Max movie with a big budget?

        Oh and the next time I buy some flares, I’ll be sure to buy black ones.

      • MJ

        We’ll see….

      • Bloost

        It was shot digitally. That’s why it looks too clean. Should’ve used film.

      • MJ

        Film with no CGI…EXACTLY !!!

      • lord jim

        i didn´t think i´d ever agree with you, but yes you are absolutely right on this!!

      • scheebles

        It’s pretty sad when you have to upvote yourself to make it seem like you’re making valid points.

      • lord jim

        it´s pretty sad when you think that the numbers of votes make a point valid.you clearly don´t get that an important part of the road warrior was it´s rawness and the reality of every single building, car, stunt, and explosion that made one feel the danger.

      • scheebles

        Obviously I’m not the one up voting myself so clearly I don’t think that. I have no idea if the film stays true to the originals. Because I haven’t seen it. What I see is a mix of cgi and very practical stunts. Which way it will blow I’m not sure. Which has been my point the entire time. Let’s see more footage or the film before we start bashing it for what it does or doesn’t do. That’s pretty fair, no?

      • lord jim

        yes.i´m hoping for the best myself.

      • scheebles

        It’s pretty sad when you have to upvote yourself to make it seem like you’re making valid points.

    • GrimReaper07

      It seems like a lot of the effects here are practical.

    • HORSEFLESH

      Why can’t bombs be coloured?

      • Sally

        Because it seems MJ doesn’t want them that way… There’s no colour on a post-apocalyptic Earth apparently (don’t know where he pulled that out of!)

    • Aquartertoseven

      Road Warrior except that Max doesn’t seem to do anything or be in the film all that much.

      • scheebles

        I know! I watched a two minute compilation of clips from a 90+ minute long film and I, too, instantly knew that Max would not be in it or do anything. We are both so smart.

      • Aquartertoseven

        I wondered if someone was going to say something like that. If you were smart, you’d know that I was referring to how the titular character isn’t really doing anything or even present most of time in this nearly 3 minute trailer, and considering that it, as all trailers do, is probably showing us the best scenes, his lack of activity and presence is odd.

      • scheebles

        It’s a teaser with a bunch of car chases. The movie opens in a year. I’m sure we’re going to be getting a lot more scenes with Max. But even so, this scene begins with Max being chased and captured (I’m fairly certain he’s the dreaded-out fellow at the beginning). We’re following him the entire trailer, it’s just that it’s a teaser focused on scope of action and not plot.

      • MJ

        I agree with Aquartertoseven 100% on this one. And we don’t frequently see eye to eye on things.

      • mattinacan

        that’s because you’re both retarded

      • Aquartertoseven

        And he didn’t seem to be involved in any of the action, that’s my point. Just seems a little weird.

      • scheebles

        So fighting one-on-one, firing two different types of guns, being strapped to a pole on a car, and driving a series of cars (in a car chase movie) is not being involved in the action? You must watch the craziest action movies ever.

        And have we not thought that maybe him strapped to the pole is one of the first action scenes and that his escape is a big action-filled moment? Miller has said that the film is practically one epic chase scene.

      • Aquartertoseven

        The one on one was him feebly pushing a guy against a wall, it was hardly kick ass, as well as being strapped to a pole (a lot of emphasis on that, seemed like a victim more than anything else).

        All I know is that the film probably gave away most of the big scenes and he didn’t appear to be particularly active. The movie could/probably is a lot different, but a trailer should sell and if they want people to see this and expect Road Warrior instead of the other shitty films, then we should see him kicking ass because he seemed pretty pathetic.

      • scheebles

        You’re just silly. You’re splitting hairs because I pointed out that he was in the entire trailer and that he was the main focus. And you half-assed realized it so you said “maybe the film is different”. The trailer is a TEASER/ANNOUNCEMENT. They don’t have to give a lot away (and from the looks of it I doubt they gave the whole film away). Did you watch that original Star Trek trailer with the Enterprise being built and say that you didn’t see Kirk captaining the the ship so therefor he must not do it in the movie? Why don’t we wait until the film comes out or heck, even a final trailer before we start bitching about Max not doing anything in the movie. Silliness all around!

      • scheebles

        You’re just silly. You’re splitting hairs because I pointed out that he was in the entire trailer and that he was the main focus. And you half-assed realized it so you said “maybe the film is different”. The trailer is a TEASER/ANNOUNCEMENT. They don’t have to give a lot away (and from the looks of it I doubt they gave the whole film away). Did you watch that original Star Trek trailer with the Enterprise being built and say that you didn’t see Kirk captaining the the ship so therefor he must not do it in the movie? Why don’t we wait until the film comes out or heck, even a final trailer before we start bitching about Max not doing anything in the movie. Silliness all around!

      • Aquartertoseven

        No, I was saying that he was barely in the trailer and did nothing. I didn’t half ass anything, I hope the film has the main character doing stuff, but the trailer didn’t exactly sell that.

        Not remotely, because I’m sure Kirk did other stuff in that trailer.

      • scheebles

        And yet again, you’re saying he’s barely in the trailer and I timed it and he’s the main focus of literally 3/4s of the trailer. And I won’t point out again what he did, because I already have twice. You’re just being thick and stubborn.

        And nope. Kirk wasn’t in the trailer at all. It was literally just the Enterprise. Know why? Because it was a teaser. Just like this one.

      • Aquartertoseven

        He’s barely in it and where he is, he’s doing next to nothing. No, I’m being thin and open to differing opinions, but I’m simply right here. How long is the ST trailer? Because teasers aren’t 2:44.

      • Arab Fannywinkle

        You’re a fuckin’ idiot, dude.

      • Aquartertoseven

        You replied to me there, not yourself. Just thought I’d make you aware of your error.

      • Arab Fannywinkle

        You’re definitely a fuckin’ idiot, dude.

      • Aquartertoseven

        Not really, everything I said was true. Plus, twice with the “fuckin’”? As if you’re cool to leave out the ‘g’? Lame.

      • Arab Fannywinkle

        I am “cool to leave out the ‘g’” because I replace it with a ” ‘ ” – it’s called grammar.

        And you’re still a FUCKIN’ IDIOT regarding this trailer.

      • Arab Fannywinkle

        I am “cool to leave out the ‘g’” because I replace it with a ” ‘ ” – it’s called grammar.

        And you’re still a FUCKIN’ IDIOT regarding this trailer.

      • Aquartertoseven

        Yes, and it’s purposely incorrect because you think you’re being cool. But you’re actually being pathetic and everyone’s laughing at you. Stop trying so hard.

      • Aquartertoseven

        Yes, and it’s purposely incorrect because you think you’re being cool. But you’re actually being pathetic and everyone’s laughing at you. Stop trying so hard.

      • Aquartertoseven

        You replied to me there, not yourself. Just thought I’d make you aware of your error.

      • scheebles

        Comic-Con clip trailers are. And how are you right if you KEEP saying that he’s barely in it when he’s in the whole thing! I’ve clocked it and provided pretty solid evidence that he’s in almost every shot in the first half and the second half, even tho it’s a mindless blur, still features him. You can argue that’s he’s not doing anything (even tho they’ve already explained that the first act would be his capture and escape, and this you can’t really “do” much as a prisoner), but you can’t argue that he’s not front and center.

      • scheebles

        Comic-Con clip trailers are. And how are you right if you KEEP saying that he’s barely in it when he’s in the whole thing! I’ve clocked it and provided pretty solid evidence that he’s in almost every shot in the first half and the second half, even tho it’s a mindless blur, still features him. You can argue that’s he’s not doing anything (even tho they’ve already explained that the first act would be his capture and escape, and this you can’t really “do” much as a prisoner), but you can’t argue that he’s not front and center.

      • Aquartertoseven

        He’s barely in it and where he is, he’s doing next to nothing. No, I’m being thin and open to differing opinions, but I’m simply right here. How long is the ST trailer? Because teasers aren’t 2:44.

      • scheebles

        You’re just silly. You’re splitting hairs because I pointed out that he was in the entire trailer and that he was the main focus. And you half-assed realized it so you said “maybe the film is different”. The trailer is a TEASER/ANNOUNCEMENT. They don’t have to give a lot away (and from the looks of it I doubt they gave the whole film away). Did you watch that original Star Trek trailer with the Enterprise being built and say that you didn’t see Kirk captaining the the ship so therefor he must not do it in the movie? Why don’t we wait until the film comes out or heck, even a final trailer before we start bitching about Max not doing anything in the movie. Silliness all around!

      • scheebles

        Just to prove how silly you two are, I watched the trailer again. The first minute and 20 seconds are literally Max getting into his car, his car getting run down, him getting drug out, him getting his head shaved, him getting tattooed, him getting strapped to pole on the car. I then saw Max drive multiple cars, fire a pistol, fight one-on-one with a villain, fire a giant rifle, and talk the Theron at the end. Not to mention that there was a sequence where they were just showing random action shots. Would someone care to enlighten me how he wasn’t in this trailer (and therefor not in the film that much as you out it)?

      • Aquartertoseven

        He just seemed tied to a pole most of the time or doing nothing. It shouldn’t take magnification to see a contribution, the trailer is supposed to sell him in his own movie, and he simply seemed very sidelined.

    • Stefan Bonomo

      You do know that while it was shot digital, 90% of the effects were done practically. Not a lot of CG to be seen. That’s why this thing took so long to get made. To me, I can’t wait. It looks like The Road Warrior on crack, and I don’t got a problem with that.

  • JCubs79

    Looks good. Can’t wait to see it.

  • pickaname

    Tom Hardy really is pretty skilled at creating voices for his characters. That first line of
    my name is max…” is pretty damn fantastic. I hope the guy gets to live up to his complete potential (which is immense). He’s here to stay.

    • lord jim

      he is a good actor, very focused and intense, but i´m afraid he just too focused on playing mad max instead of just being mad max.mel gibson had this true unpredictability, and you could feel that he didn´t belong to any kind of normal society.mel gibson is truly mad, he doesn´t have to act it while hardy is an actor.

      • Almsot

        this might have made for an interesting comment – had anybody actually seen the film yet, and not the trailer (which features MINIMAL dialogue, MINIMAL plot spoilers, and MINIMAL insight into the positions of character intents and emotions.)

        Get off your soapbox and shut up for a bit, would ya?

      • lord jim

        you are insulting me because i consider mel gibson as someone who doesn´t have to act mad max because he clearly just played himself, and created mad max by plaing himself?go fuck yourself.

      • Almsot

        once again, this might have made for an interesting comment had you seen Fury Road and could adequately discuss the nature of Tom Hardy’s performance as the titular character against the three performances from Mel Gibson in the rest of the series.

        until that point, you should shut your stupid face up.

  • GrimReaper07

    That trailer is pretty damn fantastic. Loving the art design.

  • CJ

    I have nothing clever to say about that.

    It looks fucking incredible!

    • derek

      That was clever.

  • Robert

    Looks like what we’d get if JJ Abrams directed Road Warrior. All that’s missing are the lens flares. Looks way too polished and colorful as compared to the original trilogy.

    • FoxyHound

      But lens flares are what makes a JJ Abrams movie.

    • MJ

      Yep, exactly my thoughts. Looks way too pretty.

      Miss the gritty-realism-beat up look of the first two movies….

      Mark my word, this is going to bomb. There is a reason this movie has been delayed multiple times.

      • Bob

        You did read up about the film before you commented? It was delayed because of terrain problems and not scripting, direction or the studio. Google is a powerful tool for facts…

      • MJ

        Sure it was. Just like Jupiter Ascending was delayed because “we need more time for the special effects.” LOL

        They finished initial live action filming way back in 2012, dude. So it took 3 more years for terrain issues? And the re-shoots happening late last year, so why wasn’t it released this year> WTF? LOL

        You go right on believing everything your read on the internet…movies with issues and long delays like this always have made-up excuses for the delay, and almost never turn out well.

      • Grow Up

        Yeah, like how we should believe this film’ll suck because some guy called ‘MJ’ posted on a film-board about how this film is gonna suck.

        Go inflate some life preservers with all that hot air you’re wasting – you haven’t even seen the film yet, you obnoxious dweeb.

        “Mark my word”? Grow up, mate.

      • MJ

        You can use your own brain to believe whatever you want to believe. I can’t help it if my opinion shakes things up for you…perhaps you need to grow up and have more confidence in your own opinion and stop getting so stressed about mine.

        Again, films with issues like this and long delays almost never work out…fact! We’ll see when it comes out….

        And I think you are the same person who has posted under 3 names here — Bob, Robert and Grow Up. How about having the nads to keep one ID from here on out, you anonymous name calling sockpuppet.

      • Grow Up

        Stop posting opinion as fact then, you braggadocios dickmuffin. You’re not offering an open-minded opinion to begin a friendly discourse on the nature of this new Mad Max and its trailer, you’re slamming false rhetoric down on the table and telling people to listen to you or be damned. You write as if nothing else holds water but your words, your opinions and your dream for a new Mad Max movie.

        So, grow up, mate. And learn how to display characteristics of a patient, mannered and literate human being interested in discussion. Or validate the inanity of these boards by yelling loudly about something else that *MUST* happen to make this movie a success, as if only the thoughts that come outta your head are worth a damn in the world of film.

      • Eskay

        MJ seems a little negative on this for sure. But seriously, do you people here just expect to have a bunch of “yes men” responses that praise this panel and trailer? It doesn’t look all that great to me, but it seems like people are not really tolerating contrary opinions here. A lot of this comicon stuff is just so blatantly positive — we never seems to get anything critical or contrary from the coverage here of comicon. And the guy is also right in that most movies with huge production issues and delays usually fail at the box office.

      • MJ

        Yea, I guess I am suppose to worship a movie that everyone outside of well-meaning fans is expecting to be a dud because of huge production issues, re-shoots, cast fueds, etc.

      • Grow Up

        Nice one, went for the inanity route like a champ.

        You are not meant to “worship” anything about this – you are meant to reserve your judgement and offer appropriate criticism, not heavy-handed personal preference as to what came before and how you envision it continuing into its future.

        “expecting to be a dud because of huge production issues, re-shoots [blah blah fuckity blah]…” – this coming from someone who above has just complained about the inclusion of CGI, whilst ignoring to expound about Miller’s devotion to using practical effects wherever he could? maybe THAT created some “huge production issues” (which would be great if you could verify and source…) because he wanted to make the most honest and purest film he could.

        I also love how you’ve noted how we should expect any film that has re-shoots and tension on set to be an unmitigated disaster (even if no one has seen it yet.) Have you ever read into the turbulent productions on MOST films? Suppose not.

      • MJ

        “I also love how you’ve noted how we should expect any film that has re-shoots and tension on set to be an unmitigated disaster (even if no one has seen it yet.) Have you ever read into the turbulent productions on MOST films? Suppose not.”

        That is EXACTLY why I have this opinion. I have read and know the track record of many such films. You obviously don’t.

        Perhaps lay off that crack pipe a tad before making up bullshit like this next time.

      • Grow Up

        The point isn’t that films with turbulent productions are always failures.

        The point is that plenty of films with turbulent productions can be big successes. Both artistically and in the box-office (because apparently that really does matter to you.)

        Perhaps understand what the fuck people are saying to you before hooking your ass to the keyboard and letting it fart out such shite.

      • MJ

        I never said ALL, I sad MOST.

        If I were you, I’d throw out an F-bomb at you now, but that is not how I roll.

      • Grow Up

        If you were me, you’d know you’re a fucking idiot.

      • MJ

        But if I was a fucking idiot, then I’d be you.

      • Grow Up

        That’d be a good choice.

        I am a fucking idiot.

        But less of a fucking idiot than you, it’d be like moving up in the world.

      • MJ

        LOL

      • Jamie Teller

        Major point: Jupiter Ascending was pushed back to early February, which is a dumping ground. Fury Road is coming out in mid-May, which is anything but.

      • Grow Up

        I reiterate what many have said before, and what many more will say again, on these boards – the box office receipts of a movie do not indicate it’s success and legacy. Money is not art. Art is not a business in its best and purest forms. And people should seriously understand that the most popular films and the highest grossing films are the most marketed films and that there is a huge population of easily-coerced popcorn-munchers who fill seats who care little for the artistic integrity and evolution of cinema.

        Who here would honestly say that The Avengers, Titanic and Avatar are the top three best films made in the last twenty years? Disgusting.

      • MJ

        Well, thank Jesus that we have people like you here to set us straight on which movies to like and dislike then. Because certainly a shitload of people liking a movie has obvious no bearing whatsoever on whether that’s a good movie or not (sarcasm).

        Next time I comment here, I will try to check with you first to review whether my comments are going to acceptable or not…

      • Grow Up

        Fuck off, mate. If you can’t intelligently engage in discourse and offer a counter-point and opinion, then what’s the point in typing in the first place?

        I’m sure there are plenty of movies you enjoy that weren’t massive hits at the box-office, or maybe you really are just a sheep influenced by mass-marketing and box-office numbers. I don’t know and I doubt I’d really care much by this point, the way you’ve behaved.

      • MJ

        You are one with all the insults and F-bombs here. Look in the mirror, Mensa.

      • Grow Up

        True-true. I’m allowed to use them though as they surround what are called “arguments.”

        “Look in the mirror” – yes; so instead of assessing the argument and tackling it head-on, you’ll resort to… wait, what exactly is this? Your hands are typing, but you’re not saying anything… Is it always this difficult when someone asks you a question?

      • MJ

        So after the F-bomb, now supposedly you are all of a sudden a reasoned intellectual? :-))

      • Grow Up

        I’m sorry. I thought we were attempting to have a discourse about the new trailer for Mad Max? You appear to have gone totally off-topic because you either don’t know what you were saying in the first place, don’t know what to say now, never knew what to say in the first place…

        Good on you, sport. Good on you.

      • Grow Up

        I’m sorry. I thought we were attempting to have a discourse about the new trailer for Mad Max? You appear to have gone totally off-topic because you either don’t know what you were saying in the first place, don’t know what to say now, never knew what to say in the first place…

        Good on you, sport. Good on you.

      • MJ

        Huh?

      • wESh

        Thank who? …

      • wESh

        Thank who? …

      • Eskay

        But certainly those movies you mentioned are all generally recognized as pretty darn good movies, by the public, movie production peers, the majority of crtics, etc.

      • Grow Up

        Are they in your top ten?

      • Grow Up

        Are they your TOP 3?

      • Eskay

        Avatar would be in my Top 5. Avengers probably makes my Top 20. Titanic not so much, but then again it would probably be in my wife’s Top 10 — I think the fairer sex really rates that movie high in general.

      • Grow Up

        Avatar is in your top 5 best films ever made? Wow. You must have a truly atrocious vision of what film can be and do for you.

        Are you the kind of asshole who can’t watch anything made pre-98 or something?

        And I love your blanket misogynistic statement there about women and cinema. I know plenty of women who can sit down and watch films that challenge, connect and inspire, films that require a little bit more than The Avengers does to break into and understand… How sad.

      • Eskay

        Grow Up, why are you being so hostile? Come on, you asked me a question, and I gave you an honest opinion?
        And do you really believe that in general, women don’t like Titanic more than men do? Really?

      • Grow Up

        Problem is:
        “And do you really believe that in general, women don’t like Titanic more than men do? Really?”
        - isn’t what you said in the first place.

        What you said was: “I think the fairer sex really rates that movie high in general.”

        The distinction lies in your wording, Eskay.

      • Eskay

        OK, well I apologize for my wording then.
        Man, no offense meant, but you come across here like a combination of an English Professor and the Thought Police.

      • MJ

        And that’s on a good day when he’s taking his meds.

      • Grow Up

        And you came across as a sexist moron…

        I know which I’d rather be. Sure you do too.

      • MJ

        A sexist moron would have more fun in life…just saying….

      • Eskay

        “Why Titanic Is Considered a “Women’s” Film — 2008″

        “Titanic is a grand-scale epic by James Cameron about the sinking of the ship and about a young woman, Rose DeWitt Bucater (Kate Winslet) who falls for a poor artist, Jack Dawson (Leonardo DiCaprio) while on board, rejecting her family and her evil fiancé, Caledon Hockley (Billy Zane). After the ship sinks, the two lovers escape together but Jack dies, leaving Rose to abandon her past life and live as he suggested, by following her heart. It is one of my all time favorite movies.

        Rose is attractive but doesn’t have the typical model figure. She is not large, but is a healthy weight, and has a lovely face, unlike the popular actresses and “fuckable” models of today. Her costumes are lovely and colorful, and though they are often uncomfortable looking, they are enjoyable to look at, unlike the chrome colored crap the “heroines” of mainstream action films wear. The costumes, colors, and music in the film are vivid and romantic, a rejection of the “masculine” norm of being unemotional and uncultured.

        Technology symbolizes masculinity in the film, and often in real life. Technology is something you use to conquer nature, and something you associate with our world’s idea of masculinity. The Titanic is all about SIZE and the male preoccupation with it, as Rose says.

        The film lampoons the sexist behavior of the men by portraying them as knowing what they’re doing is wrong. It doesn’t try to go all existentialist and avante garde and say that there are two sides to every story, you have to look at things from a different point of view, no one’s really evil, it was a different time and place blah blah blah.

        Titanic portrays very strong women, like Kathy Bates’ Unsinkable Molly Brown and Rose, and portrays only the upper class men as disrespectful towards women but not poor men, since the lower class is synonymous with femininity, and therefore is the butt of the male establishment’s hatred. (I don’t see it as a case of masking the fact that masculinity is the problem by presenting lower class men as “better” or making it an economic issue rather than a male hatred issue).

        One night, Rose tries to commit suicide by jumping off the back of the ship, and Jack talks her out of it. As she comes back over the railings, she slips and almost goes overboard. She screams and the ship authorities come running, just as Rose falls on the ground, her dress hiked up and Jack standing over her. Of course, they assume it’s a rape scene, because underneath, they all know many, if not most men are emotionally capable of it. Rose says she slipped trying to see the propellers and they mock her for being womanly and such.

        Jack isn’t afraid of the female body, and draws pictures of prostitutes and other women, including an elderly woman who waits for her lost lover. He doesn’t have love affairs with the women he draws- only with some of their hands. He’s more of a personality guy.

        By falling in love with Jack, Rose makes a romantic and sexual choice of her own volition, and she chooses an acceptable, enlightened, unbigoted man, who is fun to boot. Jack is protective, but not because he’s a man; rather, because he’s been more exposed to the world and knows the ropes. It also speaks volumes that she chooses a man below her power level, a man who supposedly isn’t as “biologically attractive” (strong, domineering) as a rich man. It means she chooses out of love, not out of the wish to replicate an irrational fetishized power structure.

        One night, Jack invites Rose down to a third class party with wild Irish music and beer, where she shows off her toughness by standing on her toes like a ballerina (showing that the harshness of female standards is just as harsh as the toughness standards for men, even more so sometimes). The next morning, Cal, having found out about her escapades, tells her he’s disappointed she didn’t come to bed with him that night and honor him the way a wife is required to. She tells him he cannot command her like a foreman in his mills, so he flips over a table and storms off, leaving her upset as the maid rushes in and tries to help Rose clean up. She tells the maid it was an accident, as many women do, since they are afraid to blame males even when speaking to other women. This movie does something important in that it shows what really happens behind the scenes when a woman appears to be confused or upset for “no” reason. (of course, no one should assume there is no reason, and all people have the capacity to understand there may be a reason for the emotions, so there’s no excuse- but scenes like this help us tell the truth about those causes to those who would deny it).

        Jack sees Rose naked without initiating sex with her. He is very professional when he paints her. He is sensitive and artistic without being odd and jarring and nihilistic, as some artists are. Jack’s different without being repulsive; he retains his innocence, which is the proper way to be different and creative.
        There was a quote on Wikipedia (a male controlled site) that said a newspaper or film review claimed men liked Titanic because Jack got Rose to take her clothes off by offering to draw her. Watch the movie. Nowhere in that film does this happen. She is the one who offers to do a naked drawing. And Jack isn’t the sort of man who allows bad men to define his existence, which is why he is demeaned and abused by Rose’s misogynistic fiancé, Cal.

        Cal, Rose’s fiancé, calls her a little slut when she decides to let Jack draw her naked, and later accuses her of preferring to be a whore than to be his wife, and she says she’d rather be Jack’s whore than Cal’s wife, and spits in his face.

        Rose is portrayed as equal or maybe dominant in the relationship with Jack. She initiated the sex. She saves him from danger. She calls all the shots because she’s rich. Her sexual experience is happy and purpose-driven. She has sex with Jack because she WANTS to, not because she has to. He is not drawn to her weakness, but her strength, and also to her happiness.

        The Nature Trumps Technology theme is present in the sinking. Any oppressed group, which internally realizes God or Nature or Fate is on their side, and that the established order including technology, is not, rejoices at disasters that destroy the established icons to some extent. Therefore, when Nature trumps Technology/Civilization by sinking the Titanic, the oppressed persons immediately sense an aura of divine justice. Many women watching the movie internally snicker at this phallic obstacle being one-upped by Mother Nature.

        As they try to balance on a door in the water, Jack keeps falling off, so he lets Rose stay on. He dies in the freezing water, and Rose temporarily thinks about dying there with him, but remembers what he taught her about living her own life, lets him sink to the bottom of the ocean, and swims away to contact the rescue boat. This is unheard of in most movies- a man being the agent of a woman’s happiness, and (as a plot device, at least) dying so she can be happy and live.

        Rose willingly leaves behind a world of wealth and safety in order to escape the patriarchy of that world, and to follow her heart. She takes up horseback riding, acting, and has a life of her own after the accident.

        Her final rejection of the masculine world, the throwing of the diamond jewelry into the ocean, into Nature, is the last thing she does before she can die peacefully. She rejects materialism and the male view of “logic”, which would mean not “sorting through causes and effects in order to come to a factual truth” (the PROPER definition of logic), but would mean “taking actions or making choices that lead you to an arbitrary goal [like the possession and valuing of a certain mineral] that patriarchy has deemed good”. (there is no objective reason to assume that having a diamond, or any other particular mineral, or the money that it can be traded for, is “good”).

        The movie is dedicated to emotion as well as reason. A healthy person needs both, but part of being masculine means rejecting part of your nature. Some men reject reason, and some reject emotion. Some reject both. Titanic enshrines both reason and emotion, which makes it a good film, and spits in the face of masculine ideal of dropping half your nature.

        True, it is a film from the perspective of a rich white woman, but this doesn’t mean the main message doesn’t apply to all women, including women of color or Asians. It doesn’t seem to exclude other ethnic groups’ experiences but rather seems to address a universal, that women’s lives are hard and that we must escape from them by any means necessary.

        The sea is often associated with women and the feminine- it is warm and large and “unpredictable” (at least to those who want to control and therefore predict it, even though it is no more “unpredicctable” than anything you cannot mindread!). It swallows ships and gives life. Like the mother, it was our first home, having evolved from it, the way we evolved from woman-dominated societies. “A woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secrets…”

        Titanic is hated, as is Twilight is, because it appeals to girls. It has superb special effects, tons of action, witty dialogue, and lots of death and destruction, and not the romanticized type, either. So why is it attacked by men? Not because of what it lacks, but because of what it HAS. It has morals, including sexual morals which show sexuality as connected to love and happiness. It is pro-working class, pro-women, pro-children. It tells the truth about men and what they do to women.
        There’s a reason men judge a movie by what it HAS, rather than by what it LACKS. We would assume that men would only care if a movie LACKED something they liked, such as action and special effects, because we assume that men’s evaluation of films is through a lens of selfishness, i.e., what the movie gives to them. If a movie had action and such crap, they would be fine with it, and wouldn’t care or notice what else it contained.
        But their evaluation isn’t based on selfishness; it’s based on hatred. Hence, they do not care that the movie CONTAINS what they like. They care only that it DOESN’T contain anything that helps or pleases women. If they were selfish, they would not notice others, but no, it is not selfishness they possess: it is hatred of women, what women like, and who women are. THAT is why men judge movies like Titanic on what the films have, not what they lack.

        It’s not about pleasing themselves; it’s about hating you, even on such an innocuous and petty issue as movie watching. Very well, then. Long liveTitanic!
        [on a last note, it's good that a man directed and wrote this film, because it proves that men can understand and agree with women's rights, and that there's no more "I didn't know you were suffering because I'm a man" excuse that can be made by any man]“

      • MJ

        Eskay, when someone tries to bully you on the internet, my advice is to hit them back twice as hard as they are hitting you.

      • Grow Up

        ‘Tis true! You have bested me, MJ. With your violent stings and cruel taunts you have reduced me to naught but ashes… If only I could withstand your perfectly formed and coherent arguments that stand to crush whoever dares enter into combat against you.

        Like replying ‘LOL’ at me. Hit em TWICE as hard!

      • MJ

        It’s a hard life of mine on the internet…but I do try…

      • Grow Up

        I’m not reading an article you took the time to scan the headline of and copy+paste into a film forum, you fucking mongoloid.

        Doesn’t say a fucking thing, nor clarify what you’d said and how you’d said it.

      • Eskay

        Fine, we are done here, troll.

      • Grow Up

        Your wife is a cunt.

      • MJ

        Come to think of it, he did marry your mother.

      • Grow Up

        See, even MJ agrees! Your wife IS a cunt!

      • MJ

        Best touche of the week!!! :-)

      • Jack Dennis

        i try to stop saying cunt but i cunt

      • Grow Up

        Problem is:
        “And do you really believe that in general, women don’t like Titanic more than men do? Really?”
        - isn’t what you said in the first place.

        What you said was: “I think the fairer sex really rates that movie high in general.”

        The distinction lies in your wording, Eskay.

      • Eskay

        Grow Up, why are you being so hostile? Come on, you asked me a question, and I gave you an honest opinion?
        And do you really believe that in general, women don’t like Titanic more than men do? Really?

      • scheebles

        Actually, delayed films quite often do work out. Where the Wild Things Are was notoriously difficult to film and had huge delays between filming and release. It made numerous Top Ten lists. Ratatouille was taken away from it’s director and completely reworked. It won an oscar, did crazy business, and was the best reviewed film of the year. Gravity was delayed over a year. Cabin in the Woods and Trick r Treat sat on the shelves for years. Foxcatcher was delayed a year and is the front runner for the awards season. Bourne Identity sat on a shelf for two years.

      • scheebles

        Actually, delayed films quite often do work out. Where the Wild Things Are was notoriously difficult to film and had huge delays between filming and release. It made numerous Top Ten lists. Ratatouille was taken away from it’s director and completely reworked. It won an oscar, did crazy business, and was the best reviewed film of the year. Gravity was delayed over a year. Cabin in the Woods and Trick r Treat sat on the shelves for years. Foxcatcher was delayed a year and is the front runner for the awards season. Bourne Identity sat on a shelf for two years.

      • Grow Up

        The last bastion of a failed argument is to resort to discrediting the other’s personality and appearance instead of his comments and information.

        I see no need to have an account, and I think it’s a pity that you are so quick to judge someone who isn’t able to edit their posts (so as to appear less foolish, as I presume you use it for) and relies only on what they have said – not what they should have said.

        You win at losing, sir. And liking your own comments. I imagine that’s somewhat like sucking your own dick; lonely, with the lingering aftertaste of disappointment… Your usual, sir.

      • Jack Dennis

        what are you doing on this site other then to pick on this guy and condescend?

      • Grow Up

        More importantly, what are YOU doing on this site?

        Are you attempting to defend someone’s opinion; or just bashing away at your keyboard in a move akin to screaming into an abyss, in the hope someone gives a rats-ass about what you’re saying/not-saying*?

        (*Your comment is of no use to anyone. Thank you for playing.)

      • Jack Dennis

        i think your attempt at dominating this comment section is to no use of anyone but your giant ego .survey says…..try again… or don’t because no one cares.

      • Grow Up

        Cool story, bro – glad you could get your two cents in regarding the topic of our debate. Oh wait, no, you’re not saying anything at all.

        “Survey says” quit quoting lame-ass quiz shows from prime-time in an effort to make it look as if you have something to add to a conversation.

      • Grow Up

        Cool story, bro – glad you could get your two cents in regarding the topic of our debate. Oh wait, no, you’re not saying anything at all.

        “Survey says” quit quoting lame-ass quiz shows from prime-time in an effort to make it look as if you have something to add to a conversation.

      • Grow Up

        More importantly, what are YOU doing on this site?

        Are you attempting to defend someone’s opinion; or just bashing away at your keyboard in a move akin to screaming into an abyss, in the hope someone gives a rats-ass about what you’re saying/not-saying*?

        (*Your comment is of no use to anyone. Thank you for playing.)

  • Faptain America

    Good to see Tom Hardy put the Bane mask on again, I think.
    So the plot is…desert car chase, no showers allowed?

  • Old Soldier

    “Mmphmlpl ss Mux.”
    Was he wearing his Bane mask when he said that?

    • Faptain America

      I said it first!!

  • Lowery

    This is going to be fuckin’ DOPE!!!

  • poppincherry

    Visually it looks stunning but lets see how the story goes. I bet Theron leads the movie while Hardy accompanies her.

  • Concord Dawn

    Looks like it came from the pages of 2000AD, which is great (and unsurprising, considering how long Brendon McCarthy’s been working on these two films, even though that’s the only link to the comic). I assume like Dredd, it’ll be paired down and lean, good, with even better potential than ultimately executed… and a failure at the box office (as far as Domestic; I’d expect it to do ok overseas). Something about anti-heroes doesn’t pull in majority American audiences, still. Which is a shame.

    • HORSEFLESH

      Brendan McCarthy is all over this film.

      I don’t think being an anti-hero is a problem- Clint Eastwood made a whole career out of it. Considering all other Mad Max films were a success it has something that Judge Dredd unfortunately never had which is a good track record. Mad Max won’t be falsely accused of being a remake of a bad film and Fury Road is helmed by the original creator.

      Mad Max was huge in America and looks far better and closer to the original’s spirit than the mediocre RoboCop remake.

      • MJ

        Agreed. Good anti-hero movies do great box office in America. Bad ones don’t. Fact!

        It remains to be seen whether this is a “good” one…I have my doubts, as obviously the producers do (i.e. given the delays, re-shoots and horrid Feb release date), but I hope I am wrong.

      • HORSEFLESH

        Dredd could have done moderate to good box-office but it was hampered by brand damage from the 1995 film. Being only a $35 million film meant it was never going to make half-a-billion.

      • rhizomeman

        True – Dredd is an overlooked masterpiece imo.

      • rhizomeman

        True – Dredd is an overlooked masterpiece imo.

      • mattinacan

        lol, you just compared a movie quality to it’s box office, then upvoted your own comment. wow you are a sad person.

      • RedMercury

        Minor quibble: Mad Max was not huge in America. “Road Warrior” was huge in America.

    • MJ

      Or instead, just maybe, it’s that the two Judge Dredd movies SUCKED…maybe that has something to do with it…LOL

      • rhizomeman

        Nope. Dredd was brilliant – like a Carpenter movie from the 70s. Lean, focused, brutal, exciting…

      • rhizomeman

        Nope. Dredd was brilliant – like a Carpenter movie from the 70s. Lean, focused, brutal, exciting…

      • http://www.collider.com/ DNAsplitter

        Dumped in a September release date w very poor marketing doesn’t make Dredd a bad film just means that Lionsgate wasn’t prepared on how to market a film w no bankable stars and a comic book character that most people remember from a shitty Stallone film in ’95. Dredd was a great film and that’s why the DVD sales have boosted significantly since it’s release and has even generated talk of a sequel.

      • rhizomeman

        I’m with you DNA – Dredd was fucking awesome!

  • http://www.youtube.com/somejackball somejackball

    i had a feeling this was coming soon! with all the images being released, starting up their promotional campaign.. got goosebumps! =)

  • Pingback: 『マッドマックス/フューリーロード』の映像が初公開!【時はまさに世紀末】

  • Jack Dennis

    this is going to be epic

  • Jack Dennis

    hows does charlize theron still look so gorgeous with a shaved head? its ridiculous

    • Jezebelly

      Ladies can’t be attractive with shaved heads?

      Open your eyes, mate. The world is full of different colours.

      • Jack Dennis

        I’m saying some people can pull it off and some can’t.did i say anything about her gender mate?

      • U R AN IDIOT

        Actually, you hardly said anything at all… I think that was the problem.

      • YOU are unoriginal

        i didn’t know i was suppose to check with you before comment…

      • Jack Dennis

        I’m saying some can pull it off and some can’t .did i say anything about her gender mate? why you change from “grow up” to “jezebelly”

  • Oolie zool

    what a great trailer and not a single BWAAAAA was given!

  • RedMercury

    I’m curious: Hugh Keays-Byrne is playing Immortan Joe. He also played Toe Cutter in the original Mad Max (and one of my favorite villains).

    Are they one and the same? Because that would be awesome–though it’d be interesting to see how they explain it after Toe Cutter got smeared all over the front of that truck.

    “‘Anything I say.’ What a wonderful outlook on life you have.”

  • Alan Grant

    HELL YES!!! Road Warrior is one of my favorite movies, I cannot wait for this.

  • CW

    sfdsfssggs

  • mattinacan

    wow that looks gorgeous

  • Lance Mitaro

    The expectations for this movie are too high. If anything, it will just entice a new generation of viewers to watch the original trilogy. The raw, gritty and visceral impact of The Road Warrior will always stand alone.

  • Yup

    Looks like a remake, but with a dike Theron. Let me guess, the tanker will have sand in it.

  • Kondorr

    This looks as if Charlize was Mad Max…

  • Kondorr

    This looks as if Charlize was Mad Max…

  • rhizomeman

    Looks like it could be good, but yea wish there was not so much cgi going on.

  • rhizomeman

    Looks like it could be good, but yea wish there was not so much cgi going on.

  • Pingback: MAD MAX: FURY ROAD Trailer – Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron Bring the Madness, Plus a More Detailed Plot Synopsis and Character Description - SC NATO

  • http://www.collider.com/ DNAsplitter

    Looks great but surprised that the budgt was $100M for a film like this. George Miller seems to have lost his way in the film making world w his increasingly large budgets on his last few films. This guy got started w virtually no budgets and turned out two great films. Not sure why a film like this would need anything larger than 40M budget. WB I’m sure has concerns on recouping their costs on this film and w Jupiter Ascending being delayed until February next year I’m sure it’ll be a tough year for the studio. Still I hope it turns out great as this looks like a lot of fun.

  • DEADP00L

    Charlize is easily the one that will be running this show. Seriously, I’d rather watch this than Batman V Superman now.

    • scheebles

      You know who should be in this? Deadpool.

      • DEADP00L

        YES!!!

  • Colin Christian

    That looks amazing. I heard Miller is keeping the CGI to a minimum and it shows,wow!.

  • Colin Christian

    Miller said he wanted to see if he could sustain a 90 min chase movie,this should be interesting.

  • derek

    I read an article saying that this whole movie involves a 90 minute chase scene. So if you are wondering why so much of the trailer is action. Well the whole movie is a chase scene. This movie looks 10x better than i could have ever imagined. WOW!

  • http://www.youtube.com/somejackball somejackball

    the Warrior Woman at 1:59 ?
    http://imgur.com/a/Beiyf

  • Pingback: Mad Max: Fury Road Interview: George Miller Talks Sequel at Comic-Con

  • Travis Gowen

    Ha ha, your grammar is horrible.

Click Here