6/10
Cage match!
1 May 2024
There's a moment in this where someone makes a move on the eponymous angry Australian, so he whips out his signature shotgun to blast the guy's headdress to pieces and warn him off. This scene is emblematic of the tonal shift from the lonely, R-rated nihilism of 'Mad Max 2 (1981)' to the quirky, PG-13 fluffiness of 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985)'. We all know that the real road warrior would have blown that bloke's brains out the back of his skull, but this fifteen-years-older wasteland wanderer opts to generously give him a good old scare instead. I didn't even realise that the flick wasn't R-rated prior to watching (it carries a 15 certificate in the UK, although I'm fairly sure if it was reclassified now it would be a 12 - especially considering the first two movies have been lowered to 15 somewhat recently), but I started to suspect something was amiss the longer the movie went on without featuring any real violence. Of course, violence isn't necessarily what makes the previous pictures feel more 'Mad Max' than this (whatever that truly means), but the atmosphere is notably less hostile and the stunts are considerably less dangerous (at least in terms of on-screen feel). Heck, there isn't even a car chase in the film until the third act, and even that's more focused on a train than anything with four wheels and an engine under the hood. Still, the affair isn't bad by any means. Its first half is actually pretty solid. Although it feels less seedy than you'd perhaps like, Bartertown has a tangible feel to it and acts as a distinct location for Max to undergo a sordid little assassination deal in the hopes of securing transport and fuel from the place's politically insecure founder. That's where the titular Thunderdome comes into play, and it's very unlikely to be what you're expecting. The battle that takes place inside is further proof of the flick's more obvious silliness, as it features bungee cords and chainsaws and secret weapon dog whistles. It's a fairly fun and inventive sequence despite its absurdity, and - like much of the movie - you sort of just have to go with it if you want to have a good time. The Thunderdome fight scene is essentially one of two extended set-pieces, the other being the train-escape finale I mentioned earlier. It's fun enough for what it is, but there isn't any genuine suspense because it feels relatively tame. The same is true for the climax, which lacks the tangible danger of similar scenes from previous entries in the series. It's still enjoyable and is the action highlight of the entire affair, even if it isn't as aesthetically engaging as the early Bartertown sequences. Where the movie really struggles is in its middle, as Max ends up getting involved with a band of desert-dwelling children who mistake him for some sort of pseudo messiah. This is essentially the Ewok village of the 'Mad Max' saga (the film as a whole is to its predecessor what 'Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi (1983)' is to 'Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)', except not as good), with a bunch of characters designed specifically to appeal to a younger audience talking in a vaguely cutesy way (a pet peeve of mine) while supposedly adding stakes to the story. It's easy to see that the feature didn't start out as a 'Mad Max' movie, rather a post-apocalyptic 'Lord Of The Flies' that George Miller and George Ogilvie decided to smush into something primarily focused on the former's most iconic creation. The affair really does feel like two different things callously forced together; it ends up not really being about anything in particular. It's all very slight, but not in a way that feels particularly potent - or, even, purposeful. However, the movie never totally stalls because its lulls in pacing aren't so severe that I'd call it boring. It's a decent enough experience despite its issues, and - if you can get on board with its safer vibe - there are plenty of things to keep you watching. It's arguably a little better than the first 'Mad Max (1979)' simply because it isn't as bizarrely structured (even if it is bizarrely structured) and it's more consistently engaging. It's good enough for what it is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed