Mad Max (1979)

(In theaters, March 2001) Worth seeing out of historical interest, but that’s it. Doing wonders on a very low budget, this first effort by George Miller starts with a very good car chase whose energy level is sadly not surpassed anywhere later in the film. The middle section is a predictable bore, as it laboriously sets up a revenge story whose shocker comes only fifteen minute before the end of the film. A young Mel Gibson stars, looking a lot like the popular stereotype of a gay porn star. Interestingly enough, the whole post-apocalyptic thematic of the two sequels is nearly undetectable in this first film, as much a consequence of the low-budget than a lack of imagination at that stage. Often unintentionally ridiculous by its lack of funds and polish.

(Second Viewing, On Cable TV, October 2022) As much as the original Mad Max enjoys a killer reputation as a marvel of low-budget filmmaking, even a second viewing the film can’t make me muster much enthusiasm for the film as a whole.  I’m not going to argue the point that the film is as good as it gets during its action sequences: the way writer-director George Miller is able to pace and frame his action sequences is good, and even more impressive know how little he had to work with.  But it’s when Mad Max stops moving and starts walking that the film loses a lot of energy and cohesion – it can’t tell its story cleanly, and as a result, we’re stuck waiting for the next fast-paced sequence.  (Further compounding the problem is that the best sequence is the first – nothing else later on acts as an action climax.)  A few of the film’s strengths come from those budgetary limits – the sense of a society sliding into a complete social breakdown is still an intriguing facet of its atmosphere, but it’s clearly because they couldn’t afford to do more than talk about it in front of then-contemporary sets.  Max Mad benefits considerably from the halo effect of its sequel: The Road Warrior is about as perfect an action film as has ever been made (not to mention Fury Road), so it’s natural that its scrabbly predecessor would also get some second-hand glory from it.  But even on a second viewing, I’m more interested than impressed by the result: it’s visually rough, but it’s even rougher narratively, and that’s weirdly opposite to the usual strengths and weaknesses of low-budget films.