Tom Burke

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (2024): Anya Taylor-Joy is Fast and Furious in This Mad Max Prequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is directed by George Miller (Happy Feet, Babe: Pig in the City) and stars Anya Taylor-Joy (The Super Mario Bros. Movie, The New Mutants), Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Rush), Tom Burke (Mank, The Souvenir), and Alyla Browne (Sting, Three Thousand Years of Longing) in a prequel film that follows its titular character’s origins throughout various stages of her life, before she meets Mad Max.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is one of those films that had my interest ever since it was first announced. And as much as I know people love Charlize Theron’s take on the character back in “Mad Max: Fury Road,” I was very much excited to see what Anya Taylor-Joy could do with the role. She is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now, racking up several projects that have given her a diverse resume. Everything from Jane Austen adaptations like “Emma.,” to visionary horror titles like “Last Night in Soho,” to a video game adaptation that has become one of the decade’s most mainstream titles, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie.” I am proud to say that when it comes to Anya Taylor-Joy’s take on the Furiosa character, I was not disappointed. Like all of her other roles, she plays the part well. Despite this movie having a female protagonist, this movie feels pretty masculine. And I mean that in a positive way. As I watched this movie, I was on a bit of a high, and Anya Taylor-Joy is the drug that fueled it.

In fact, all the actors in this film are great. None of them feel out of place. Not only does Taylor-Joy provide a superstar outing as Furiosa, but her younger variant, played by Alyla Browne, also shines bright. Lachy Hulme does a good job as Immortan Joe, who we previously saw played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in “Fury Road,” rest in peace. In fact, that’s not his only role in the film, because he is credited with playing Rizzdale Pell, a gang member serving under this film’s most enjoyable character to watch, Chris Hemsworth’s Dementus.

They say a movie is only as its good as its villain, so I am happy to report that Dementus will end up being one of my favorite on-screen villains I have seen this year. While Chris Hemsworth is playing a different character entirely, it is safe to say that he is putting the “mad” in “Mad Max.” He’s over the top, bombastic, and kind of wonderfully demented. Sometimes he is so rage-filled it is kind of artistic. There is something beautiful about it. Also, I love how he has a line twisting a classic phrase where he utters, “Lady and gentlemans.” Chef’s kiss.

And much like Hemsworth’s Thor sometimes, I can say Dementus’ beard game in this movie is strong. Just look it it. I have grown out my facial hair quite a bit from time to time, but I cannot say I have ever grown a beard like the one Dementus has. Adding to the beautiful rage of this character, Hemsworth himself has something to say to back that up. Speaking with Variety, Hemsworth goes on about his experience in the makeup chair…

“Twas justifiably irritated by the end of it. That really helped my performance-there was a nice amount of pent-up rage simmering under the surface.”

Take this as a lesson kids. If you work hard enough, and learn some patience by sitting in a chair, you too can entertain tons of people by becoming a bit of a maniac. Inspiring stuff.

That said, looking back at “Furiosa,” this movie ends on a bit of an interesting note. I do not want to spoil everything that happens in this film, but if you are a novice to this franchise, I will remind you once again this is a prequel to “Mad Max: Fury Road.” A film that, and I apologize to the thousands of cinephiles I am inevitably going to irritate, I find to be a tad overhyped.

Now to find that flame shield…

Nevertheless, I recognize that a lot of work went into “Mad Max: Fury Road,” not to mention a lot of money. Based on research via IMDb, the total budget of the film comes out to $150 million. Despite being older and less expensive, it still looks better than some of the more recent Marvel projects for example, including Hemsworth’s own “Thor: Love and Thunder.” Just so we have the statistics in place, I will remind you that “Furiosa” cost more than “Fury Road,” specifically $168 million. For the record, Wikipedia says “Fury Road” cost anywhere between $154.6–185.2 million, but if I had to compare “Fury Road” and “Furiosa” side by side, I would say that “Fury Road,” depending on what the actual budget is, feels like the slightly bigger bang for the studio’s buck. It is also a slightly better movie as a matter of fact. Story-wise, both of these movies do not have the most Shakespearean of plots or happenings. They are pretty simple when it comes to their concepts. And honestly, in the case of “Furiosa,” I sometimes wish I were more interested in some of the goings on that we witnessed on screen. “Furiosa” has a runtime of 148 minutes, and I truly felt that runtime. I have no problems with movies going on for that long. In fact on paper, one of the pros of having such a long runtime for a movie like this is that we get to see some pretty cool extended action sequences. There are some action scenes that go on for quite a bit and had me glued to the screen. But substance-wise, “Furiosa” feels kind of thin. Does this movie try to deliver a fun story? I guess. But other than seeing Furiosa grow up, I did not feel as engaged with this film as I wanted to. That said, one thing I was engaged by was seeing Furiosa’s exposure to certain torturous acts, and how much said acts shaped the perspective of the character throughout the film.

But this film ends on an interesting, yet rather fitting note. I do not think this is a spoiler. If you think otherwise, you do you. But the end credits for “Furiosa” start with a few minutes of clips essentially detailing “Mad Max: Fury Road.” After all, again, this film leads into that one. Though it got me thinking… Upon leaving the movie, I did not say I wanted to go back and watch “Furiosa” a second time. If anything, the credits made me think I should potentially revisit “Fury Road” instead. While “Furiosa” is well done in its own right, it made me wish I were watching something better. I have seen “Fury Road” twice, and even though I think it is not the masterpiece some call it, I recognize there is plenty to like about it. And I think there is more to like about “Fury Road,” than “Furiosa.” Sure, “Furiosa” could stand as its own movie, but at the end of the day, it doubles as the world’s most robust, compelling advertisement for “Mad Max: Fury Road.”

Much like “Fury Road,” “Furiosa” tends to use star power to sell itself between the casting of Anya Taylor-Joy and Chris Hemsworth. However, from an effects perspective, the money is definitely there, but it does not mean the quality is there. What makes the look of “Fury Road” so appealing at times is despite knowing it is a movie, it tends to look as raw and lifelike as it could in such an environment on display. In “Furiosa,” there are a fair share of effects that look like they could belong in a blockbuster movie, but they feel like they belong more in a demo for the sake of showing off a new piece of tech. There is a lot less verisimilitude with these effects this time around. While “Furiosa” does not have the worst special effects I have seen, they are a significant step down compared to its predecessor.

And that’s the thing about this movie. It reminds me a lot of “Fury Road,” but it does not do anything as exciting as it. Plus between some long buildup, some forgettable characters, and scenes that probably did not need to go on as long as they did, I do not think “Furiosa” is worth watching a second time. How does it compare to the other “Mad Max” installments? I will be real, I have not seen any of the other ones. I want to, I just have not had the time. I could tell George Miller made the movie the way he intended. I just wish it were better.

In the end, “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” has plenty of positives. But there is not a lot in this movie, maybe other than Hemsworth as the villain, that truly stands out. Do not get me wrong. Anya Taylor-Joy does a good job as the title character. The film, despite some overpolishing, is easy on the eyes. The color palette of the film is appealing. I say this film looks like an over the top tech demo, and I meant such a thought as a bit of a dig. But it does not mean the film all looks bad. Also, if the Oscars were tomorrow, “Furiosa” would definitely be nominated for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. But when all is said and done, I would rather watch “Mad Max: Fury Road” one more time as opposed to watching “Furiosa” again. I am going to give “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” a 6/10.

“Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” is now playing in theatres and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Thelma,” the new movie starring June Squibb as an elderly woman who tries to get her money back from scammers. Also coming soon, I will share my thoughts on “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga?” What did you think about it? Or, which Furiosa-centric story do you think is superior? “Fury Road” or “Furiosa?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Mank (2020): Yeah, Mank Almost Stank…

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Mank” is directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) and stars Gary Oldman (The Darkest Hour, The Dark Knight), Amanda Seyfried (Ted 2, First Reformed), Lily Collins (Mirror Mirror, Abduction), Arliss Howard (Medium, True Blood), Tom Pelphrey (Guiding Light, Iron Fist), Sam Troughton (Alien vs. Predator, Chernobyl), Ferdinand Kingsley (Victoria, Dracula Untold), Tuppence Middleton (Jupiter Ascending, Sense8), Tom Burke (Only God Forgives, The Musketeers), Joseph Cross (Running with Scissors, Big Little Lies), Jamie McShane (Sons of Anarchy, Bloodline), Tony Leonard Moore (Daredevil, Billions), Monika Gossman (Maximum Impact, Iron Sky), and Charles Dance (Godzilla: King of the Monsters, Game of Thrones). Holy CRAP that’s a lot of people! This film takes place in 1930s Hollywood as we see a manipulative and striking piece of history play out all the while screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz tries to finish the screenplay for “Citizen Kane.”

David Fincher - IMDb

I’m gonna let you guys in on a little truth I need to spit out. I have not seen any of David Fincher’s films. Not “Fight Club,” not “Gone Girl,” not even “Alien 3.” Therefore, “Mank” is officially taking my David Fincher virginity. I have seen a lot of the work from heavy hitters over the years. Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, and Guillermo Del Toro. David Fincher for whatever reason was just one of those names I continued to avoid. So, what are my thoughts on my first encounter with David Fincher’s work?

If you want the truth, “Mank” is marvelous to the naked eye. Granted, this is a less than traditional looking film for the modern age. It’s presented in black and white, there are several scenes that are presented back and forth in time, and to establish such time frames, the film gives you a screenplay perspective where it tells you whether the scene takes place inside or outside, where specifically the scene is located, and when. I think that is a nice quirk that I have not seen in any other film. The cinematography is breathtaking and if it were not for “Tenet,” it could arguably be top dog for the year. The film has this throwback feel and there’s some echo-like sounds you can hear from one moment to the next. Fincher directs the crap out of this thing and each scene feels like it could only be put together by a true craftsman. There are a diverse amount of appealing sets that enlightened me as a viewer and allowed me to keep my eyes on the screen.

If only the story were significantly more interesting. Because “Mank” is forgettable, kind of a blur at this point, and certainly… BORING!

Now, let me just say, I like the concept of this movie. For starters, I am a lover of film history, which “Mank” centers around. And there have been examples of movies about film history that have been done well. A few recent examples include Disney’s “Saving Mr. Banks,” which dives into the production of “Mary Poppins,” and A24’s “The Disaster Artist,” which goes over the production and release of Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room,” one of the most hilariously awful movies to ever exist. In the case of “Mank,” part of what this film is about is the making of “Citizen Kane,” which many consider to be the most important film ever made. Although unlike those previous two examples, which go over the production of the film, this film centers a lot around pre-production and little bit more. There is so much to tackle and analyze in a couple of hours.

If 2020 has taught us anything just with the release of HBO Max’s “Superintelligence,” created by husband and wife team Ben Falcone and Melissa McCarthy, it’s that family projects do not always work. “Mank” is directed by David Fincher and written by his father, Jack Fincher, who passed away in 2003. Said father wrote the script in the 1990s but it never came into fruition until today. As happy as I am to see a family dream fulfilled, my time was nevertheless wasted.

Much of this film involves an election, which sort of makes today the perfect time to release this film considering how we just had a presidential election in the United States. I will say that such a part of film intrigued me, and that is somewhat surprising because as a film buff, that is not really what I was going into “Mank” to see. Even so, it delves into the concept of fake news, which is a relevant term nowadays, and if you think Hollywood is political today, as some people claim it to be, this movie paints a picture of Hollywood perhaps slightly manipulating the minds of people to have an election go their way. I just wish the impact of this subject matter, along with the rest of the movie hit me a tad more. I did not really feel anything except for my reclined seat throughout the film.

Although, some of the performances in “Mank” makes the feature worth the watch. For example, Arliss Howard does a fantastic job playing Louis B. Mayer, and I would not mind seeing him receive a Best Supporting Actor nomination in the future for the role. Although my favorite performance in “Mank” is from Amanda Seyfried. Prior to watching “Mank,” I liked Amanda Seyfried. That’s the case even in movies that I did not necessarily enjoy like “You Should Have Left.” Regardless of how much I wanted that movie to end as I watched it, I still think Seyfried gives it her all each time she performs. When it comes to her performance in “Mank,” this is easily her best yet. Part of it may have to do with the efforts from the costuming and makeup department, because whenever I am looking at her character, I do not feel like I am looking at Seyfried herself. On that note, she, along with “Mank” itself, does an alright job at providing a sense of immersion. I wish I left this film with a sense of being able to remember everything within a few days, but still.

And of course, you have Gary Oldman, who gives another great performance here. Oldman is a fine actor, although he is not my favorite of all time. Even so, I respect the man because he traditionally commits to his craft. While I would not consider his performance as Mankiewicz to be his best, Oldman does a great job in “Mank,” he has solid chemistry with Lily Collins during scenes they’re in together, and I do think he will be in a number of conversations during the awards season.

There are many films like “Dunkirk,” “Blade Runner,” and “Tenet” that I have been willing to give more than one watch because for all I know maybe I missed something the first time, or maybe my appreciation for those films could grow with each watch. I do not think “Mank,” as attractive as it is to the pupil, will end up being one of those films. It feels like a one and done deal. That’s really sad because I feel like this is the film, more than any other, that Netflix is going to hype up for the awards season. And it is deserving of nominations in a number of regards. Unfortunately, story and characterization might not be one of them, at least for me.

In the end, “Mank” almost stank. It was halfway decent, but could not quite stick the landing. If you want my recommendation, I will say as someone who has watched “Citizen Kane,” I think that it would be a better idea to watch that film, which “Mank” sort of bases its story around, instead of David Fincher’s latest directorial effort. I hope to maybe watch some of Fincher’s other films in the future when I have the motivation, but I do not know if I will have the motivation to watch “Mank” anytime soon. I’m going to give “Mank” a 5/10.

“Mank” is now playing in select theaters and is available on Netflix for all subscribers.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for another Netflix original film, “The Midnight Sky,” directed by George Clooney. Before I saw this film, I was pretty excited to watch it as I am a sucker for space movies. As for my final thoughts, you’ll have to wait on those. Stay tuned! Speaking of staying tuned, if you want to stay tuned for more great content, follow Scene Before either with an email or a WordPress account! Also, check out my Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Mank?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite David Fincher movie? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!