Such a fun watch, maybe one of the best experiences I've had in a theater. I couldn't have asked for a better ending to 24 year old franchise.

In moviemaking, sadly, there can be a problem with going to the well too many times, and this latest installment in one of filmdom’s better cinematic franchises verges on proving just that. This offering’s predecessors (2016, 2018) significantly distinguished themselves from the kind of fare typically found in the superhero genre with their outrageously bawdy humor, hilarious sight gags and relentlessly maverick attitude. This time out, however, director Shawn Levy’s latest effort is a decidedly hit or miss affair, with an often-incoherent script that feels like it was cobbled together from a collection of leftover parts, some of which work and some of which don’t. I suppose that’s not entirely surprising from a screenplay that was penned by four different writers, making me wonder how much consensus was in place in compiling the finished product. Moreover, this film appears to be intended to fold the Deadpool franchise into the X-Men franchise, an intriguing idea that, regrettably, is handled rather clumsily (as has often been the case with many other recent fusion offerings in the Marvel Universe). And, if all that weren’t bad enough, this release gives short shrift to the colorful cast of supporting players that made the Deadpool films so funny, original and enjoyable, relegating them to little more than cameos in favor of walk-ons by a host of other MCU characters (some of them remarkably obscure, I might add) in an attempt to help cement the franchise cross-pollination going on here. It makes for awkward storytelling at times, especially for viewers who might not be familiar with these lesser-known figures, some of which are drawn from Marvel source material unrelated to its big screen offerings. To the picture’s credit, it features yet another stellar turn by Ryan Reynolds as the off-color protagonist, as well as its share of hilarious bits (without a doubt the franchise’s historically strongest suit), including a number of unabashed, razor-sharp asides referencing off-screen developments related to the studios that produced these films and the actors who have appeared in them. These strengths notwithstanding, however, this is a production that has sadly watered down the elements that best made this franchise work in favor of an overarching programming agenda that simply doesn’t serve this film or the series particularly well. The creators would have served themselves and viewers better by sticking with what works and the basics of good storytelling than trying to force an issue for the sake of future productions that may or may not work over the long term. This has been a noticeable downfall in the quality of many of the most recent Marvel Universe releases, and I’d truly hate to see this franchise befall a similar fate.

_Deadpool & Wolverine_ is the best the MCU has been since Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. It’s two hours of comic book-driven fan service and delivers entertaining surprises, nostalgic throwbacks, memorable action sequences, and worthwhile performances.
**Full review:** https://bit.ly/WadeLogan

Its story may not be the strongest, but the comedy makes 'Deadpool & Wolverine' an excellent watch!
There are some top notch gags in there, particularly to do with the recent offscreen changes for Wade Wilson's alter ego. As you'd expect with Ryan Reynolds in this role, the jokes are plentiful and there is barely any time to react to one before another appears. That can sometimes not work as well as intended, e.g. 'Deadpool 2', but here the humour is executed perfectly.
Reynolds himself is quality, it is a quintessential Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool performance. It's real neat to see Hugh Jackman back as Wolverine, he does play second fiddle to the other titular character but still more than holds his own, as you'd expect. Emma Corrin, meanwhile, enters the MCU with a great showing.
As noted at the top, I do think the plot couldn't been superior - but not in a negative way. What is portrayed is still entertaining to watch, it's just not necessarily on the same level as the comedic elements. A fun watch, all the same. Do I like it more than the 2016 original? I think so, would only be minorly so though.

Theres not much of a plot and the villains weren't that great. It was a good laugh though and amazing cameos and fight scenes.

"Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" could very well leave you asking this question (and of course you are perfectly entitled to): Where are all the humans? The answer to that also provides one of the most diverting aspects of the entire film. The humans are preoccupied with a vault containing all that is needed to get the satellite communications started again. Could this possibly be a tantalising precursor to perhaps yet another film? But if so, where would another film lead? It can only lead in a circle with the apes and the humans battling it out over who will have dominance over the entire planet. Anyway, this current installment is slow moving for the most part, although it is also wonderfully entertaining and the visual effects are a tremendous triumph as with all the other preceding films.

Did I even watch this? It sucks. Apes are smarter but rely on human intelligence which somehow survives the stupid virus and now they have the hdd! Whoops. Spoiled the whole show. Sorry. It sucks anyway.

.#NOTMYCAESAR
.#NOTMYMAURICE
haha all jokes aside It wasn't bad, certainly not as good as Dawn and War but good enough
It looks amazing, the majority of the CGI could pass as real and looking around the overgrown posthuman world was a pleasure in itself.
perfect flick to watch with a hangover paired with a Bloody Mary (or three)
very much hope this is the start of another trilogy

The Planet of the Apes prequel films have been nothing short of astonishing, and Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes continues this trend with remarkable filmmaking. The decision to set this installment 300 years after the previous films, yet still focus on Caesar's legacy, was a brilliant move. It effectively addresses the absence of Andy Serkis and Caesar by weaving his influence throughout the narrative.
Our protagonist Noah and his clan emerge as standout characters, bringing new life to the series. Their dynamic and struggles are compelling, adding depth to the narrative. Proximus Caesar serves as an effective villain, embodying the darker aspects of Caesar's legacy. His complex motivations and ruthless tactics provide a formidable challenge for Noah and his allies.
My biggest gripe with the film lies in the portrayal of the human element. There is a lack of clarity regarding humanity's current state within this franchise. More understanding or explanation of humanity's status would have enriched the story. For instance, scenes involving humans operating missile silos 300 years after their construction strain credibility without sufficient backstory. A deeper exploration of how humanity has adapted or regressed over the centuries would have added valuable context.
Despite this flaw, the overall filmmaking remains top-notch. The visuals are stunning, with meticulous attention to detail in both the ape civilization and the post-apocalyptic landscapes. The special effects, particularly the motion capture work, are exceptional, bringing the apes to life with astonishing realism.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a fantastic addition to the series, successfully balancing new elements with the rich legacy of Caesar. While the human storyline could benefit from greater depth and clarity, the film excels in its primary focus on the apes and their evolving society. This installment delivers a satisfying conclusion to the saga, and I would be content if the series ended here, preserving the integrity of Caesar's legacy and the high standards set by these prequels.

Whilst Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is a competent and moderately entertaining addition to the franchise, I do wonder if there really was a need to make it?
Kingdom (as I'll refer to it) is entertaining but it really does little, in this reviewers estimation, to move the franchise forward in a meaningful way. Its story is rather formulaic and you do quickly feel like you have "seen it all before", in one form or another.
Having said this, I do not think Kingdom is a bad film. That would be unfair. Its CGI is top notch, as I said its story is basic but it does work, with well paced, varied action. Commendably, they even managed a little human/ape interest, which lifts the characters beyond being mere, cardboard cut outs.
In summary, entertaining, watchable but really as far as I can see, nothing new is on offer here, either. Perhaps I'm being a little harsh but it would be nice, to see some genuine originality from Hollywood. They could do it once, why not now?

"Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" is a thrilling continuation of the acclaimed franchise, directed by Wes Ball. The film dives deeper into the evolving society of intelligent apes, showcasing stunning visual effects and a compelling narrative that explores themes of leadership, conflict, and coexistence. The performances, particularly by Andy Serkis as Caesar, are powerful and emotive, bringing depth to the characters and the story. With its blend of action, drama, and thought-provoking themes, "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" is a captivating addition to the series that will resonate with fans and newcomers alike.

Just seen this and thought it was a pretty good edition to the series.
The CGI is now good enough for what is probably our first really in-depth look at the ape civilization following the fall of man.
Sure, it doesn't have as grandiose a story as Caesar's but it does a grand job of world building and showing us how the ape society of the distant future is functioning. The exploration of the mythology which has built up with regards to their past and Caesar's time is also interesting.
Proximus isn't even really a villain as such, which makes him and his vision for the future a nice counter to the uncertain goals of Noa's human companion.
Particularly enjoyed the ending, which, when you realise it is coming, you have to laugh as it has been set up throughout the movie.
And the little kicker was good too. Setting us up nicely for a sequel which may see this reboot series veer back towards it's origins.
Definitely well worth seeing if you're a fan of the reboot series...

Has its moments, though overall I kinda found 'Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes' a bit of a slog to sit through.
The original trilogy are films that I do enjoy, they're very good. This fourth installment, however, underwhelmed me throughout its 145 minute run time. It starts off a new plot, obviously given how 'War for the Planet of the Apes' concluded, and the new characters and their stories didn't really interest me.
Some of the action is watchable, the military bunker angle is decent, the visual effects are strong (but we already knew that) and the bits directly with Noa and Raka are the film's best in my opinion. I don't, though, really recall much else about this and remember feeling quite nonplussed whilst watching; the literal final music-filled shot got me pumped though, out of nowhere. None of the cast (voice or otherwise) stand out, either.
I'd have finished this franchise with the 2017 flick, but very much sounds like the filmmakers are planning another trilogy with this one. Hopefully I'll enjoy those (and the inevitable 2030s 'new' trilogy... 😏) more.

Quick question. So it was a virus that led to the role reversal between the speaking humans and their ape counterparts? Now the apes have the upper hand and humanity is back in the caves. What I don't really get is why everything is in ruins and why there's an escalator in the middle of a forest full of zebras? Speech is crucial for communication, granted, but as the apes now thrive amidst the ruins of human construction I couldn't quite figure out why it was all decimated in the first place. Was there a war? Did I miss it? Anyway, Simian society still claims derivation from "Caesar" and in typical human fashion is just as divided. The apes live a peaceful life stealing the eagle's eggs from precariously perched nests so they can rear them themselves - and the eagles don't really seem to mind. The militaristic gorillas raid their village and drag them all to the seaside resort of "Proximus" where he is trying to break into an human, subterranean, vault. The raid caused havoc amongst the peaceable apes and left only "Noa" to try to free them. En route, he encounters "Mae" (Freya Allan) - an human who can speak, and upon arrival she befriends another talking person "Trevathan" (William H. Macy) who are both expected to help reach the treasures of the vault. She knows what's in there, and with the help of her new friends hopes to salvage what she was sent to retrieve - but without allowing any weapons inside to fall into enemy hands. It takes far too long to get going, this, but once we've established who is who and the story has kicked in, it's quite an exciting tale with some great visuals effects and just a little philosophy to keep it from falling into a trap of franchise mundanity. The acting isn't really up to much, but an enthusiastic effort from Kevin Durand as the menacing leader and some authentic looking acrobatics not seen since Johnny Weissmuller make for an entertaining episode in what is clearly a soap-style plot development where this is but an episode in a what happens next scenario.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/kingdom-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
"Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is an intriguing addition to the franchise, full of fascinating parallels and a thought-provoking exploration of Caesar’s legacy, despite some lack of depth linked to the motivations of some characters.
The exploration of important themes such as religion, war, and distinct perspectives on biblical figures leads to the most immersive moments of a film that takes time to find its rhythm. With a clear vision from Wes Ball and fantastic performances, the impressive motion-capture work contributes tremendously to a visually mesmerizing experience.
For fans of the saga, it’s a continuation worth following with interest, promising more moral reflections on the evolution of nature and the inevitable cycle of life."
Rating: B

I have to be honest and say that, if far left Hollywood had not turned out one woke turd after another but actually good movies as they used to a long time ago, this one might not have earned five out of five stars from me.
But since the Hollywood pedophiles have more or less ruined everything they touch the competition for good movies is more or less non-existent so here we go.
The movie is pretty much free of woke bullshit and far left preaching so that alone earns it at least two stars.
This movie is very much a John Wick style movie. Some dumbass criminals piss off the wrong guy and a fireworks display of martial arts and dead criminals follows.
Jason Statham, as Adam Clay aka The Beekeeper, is really at his best in this movie. He is a kick-ass, relentless, stone hard, killer focused on both revenge and the eradication of the human scum that preys on the weak and, in this case, stupid.
The bad guys, at least at the start, is an organization that runs on-line scams. When scamming the person that has taken Adam under her wings after his retirement it has unforeseen and tragic consequences.
Later in the movie this simple plot evolves, as the blurb states, to a national emergency due to the corrupt and criminal actors involved at high levels.
When I watched the movie I really thought that this entire scamming things was a bit unrealistic. I mean come on, people cannot be that stupid! But then I reminded myself that people also, allegedly, voted for a senile turnip brain with a kackling moron as vice president so I guess they can be.
As I wrote, Statham is really at his best. If we should compare with John Wick again, Statham is much more menacing and vengeful than Keanu Reeves ever was in John Wick.
I really like how the criminal asshats at all levels gradually gets their rightful, and usually terminal, punishment and that they most of the time gets to see and sweat as their doom approaches.
Also, the stunts are not at all as exaggerated and ludicrous as in the fourth John Wick installment. That does not mean that they are very realistic but then that is not really to be expected in this kind of action movie.
The story overall is not bad. It is an action movie type of story which means it is fairly simplistic, it has plot holes and it is not overly realistic but that is fine. It is good enough and it is Statham that carries the movie anyway.
This was indeed one of the best movies in a long time as far as I am concerned. Pure entertainment.
Share this:

Been there, seen that (a dozen times!). This movie follows the same tired trope of a rogue US government agent. Hollywood, how many more can there be? If you're looking for something original, skip this one.

**The Beekeeper** is a serviceable action thriller that delivers what you would expect from a _Jason Statham_ vehicle: brutal fights, cheesy one-liners, and a simple revenge plot. The film is directed by David Ayer, who has a knack for creating gritty and violent urban settings, and written by Kurt Wimmer, who has a penchant for crafting absurd and convoluted sci-fi scenarios. The result is a mashup of John Wick, The Equalizer, and The Matrix, with a dash of bee-related humor and symbolism.
**Statham** plays _Adam Clay_, a reclusive beekeeper who lives on a farm owned by his elderly friend _Eloise Parker_ (**Phylicia Rashad**). When Eloise falls victim to a phishing scam orchestrated by a sinister tech company, Adam decides to use his skills as a former elite operative to track down and punish the culprits. Along the way, he encounters various obstacles and enemies, such as corrupt cops, hired goons, and a mysterious hacker known as The Queen (Ruby Rose). He also forms an unlikely alliance with Eloise's daughter, FBI agent Sarah Parker (**Emmy Raver-Lampman**), who is investigating the same case.
The film does not waste much time on exposition or character development, focusing instead on the action sequences and the spectacle. Statham is in his element as the stoic and efficient killing machine, dispatching his foes with a variety of weapons and martial arts moves. He also delivers some witty and sarcastic remarks, often involving bees or honey. The supporting cast is mostly forgettable, except for Rashad, who brings some warmth and dignity to her role, and Rose, who plays the villain with a mix of charm and menace.
The film's biggest flaw is its lack of originality and coherence. The plot is a generic and predictable revenge story, with some implausible twists and turns. The film also tries to incorporate some themes and messages about technology, society, and morality, but they are either underdeveloped or contradictory. For example, the film seems to criticize the dangers of data mining and online fraud, but also glorifies the use of hacking and surveillance by the protagonist. The film also uses the bee motif as a metaphor for Adam's identity and mission, but it is often inconsistent and superficial.
The Beekeeper is not a film that will challenge or surprise you, but it is a film that will entertain you if you are in the mood for some mindless and fun action. It is a popcorn flick that knows its strengths and limitations, and delivers on its promise of Statham kicking ass and cracking jokes. If you are a fan of his previous works, or of the action genre in general, you will probably enjoy this film. Just don't expect anything more than that.

I'm conflicted about 'The Beekeeper'.
On the one hand, it's fantastic entertainment as Jason Statham plays a brilliantly badass character - every scene with him is top, top notch. The editing, action and score are positives, though everything around those aforementioned elements is annoyingly very hit-and-miss... and I'm not sure how much the other bits affect my enjoyment.
Away from the great Statham, the cast are also up-and-down. Josh Hutcherson and Jeremy Irons are decent, I think inferior actors would've done much worse so those two do do well in fairness. Sadly, for Emmy Raver-Lampman & Co. on the FBI side of the story... not the best. I mean, they're OK but kinda boring at the same time.
Raver-Lampman's character is also quite lamely written, not the actress' fault of course but still. Without spoiling anything, I feel like her character should've been way more sympathetic to Clay's cause given the obvious - like, still 'do your job' absolutely but it's as if the character forgot what happened at the start of the movie.
The scummy organizations are also portrayed a bit too cartoony, based on what I've seen in real life about those sorta people is that they're usually lousy losers who happen to know how to do what they do - rather than 'Gen Z' (please do forgive me for using that term *shudder*) smartasses who party 24/7 as this 2024 release shows.
I'm happy with the rating I've settled on, Statham merited more though.

Dumb as a brick. I'm sorry but the story behind this is downright moronic, not helped by shallow or aimless characterisations, absurd action, empty dialogue and no real finale.
In summary, a low IQ action flick that's stuffed full of empty exposition and little else.

I watched all the The ___ movies in preparation for the most expensive, The Beekeeper. It's short, snappy and dumb. Statham kills people like usual. Just a hard-working American bloke who only ever wanted to be cared for. If you feel all Australians are goofy and should die, you'll really like the end and probably rate it higher than I did.

9/10
> A **violent, bloody and relentless action thriller** with a cliche but strong storyline and beautifully shot action scenes.

"Clay" (Jason Statham) has worked for an off-the-books US government programme designed to provide the ultimate security to the democratic process by providing unlimited training and resources to a group of people whose job it is is to objectively protect the system. These folks are called "beekeepers" which is lucky because our Jason has decided to spend his well earned retirement doing precisely that. He rents some space in the barn of "Eloise" (Phylicia Rashad) and one evening she invites him round for supper. He arrives to find that she has committed suicide and a cursory investigation from her FBI daughter "Verona" (Emmy Raver-Lampman) reveals she was the victim of a callous scam that wiped out not just her savings, but $2 million from a charity she chaired. Yep, you've guessed it. "Clay" decides it's time to reactivate his account and get on the trail of these people regardless of just how high up the food chain the trail of complicity and corruption leads. Statham adopts a rather curious accent throughout this totally unoriginal and derivative action thriller that gets gradually more preposterous as it goes on. Josh Hutcherson and Jeremy Irons add a little box-office to the thing, but their roles are undercooked and the former is actually pretty hopeless throughout. Some fun pyrotechnics and you wouldn't ever want to mess with "Clay" but these one-man assassination squad movies are ten a penny now and this is certainly not one of the best.

"Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" is enjoyable enough and George Miller is an amazing director, but the film is overlong and it does have a tendency to meander too much of the time. It is basically nothing more than a high octane succession of action scenes at its core, but don't get yourself too excited by the prospect of this. The scenes in question lack the raw excitement of the original trilogy and this is principally because most of the action is obviously taking place in the comfortable security of the studio. This is disappointing, especially when compared to the downright reckless derring-do of the original films where the absolutely superb stunt teams risked life and limb in pursuit of the imaginative and timeless sequences they captured on film for our enjoyment back in the hazardous days where health and safety precautions barely existed at all whereas today the most serious injury you are apt to receive is when your harness suddenly goes a little crazy and bounces you off the nearest green screen.

I do not know if I expected another woke Hollywood turd and therefore was really positively surprised or if the movie is just really good but, to me, this is a really good movie.
I had heard rumblings about it being bad but, again too me, that is just not true. It is also claimed that it didn’t do as well as expected at the box office but then this is oftentimes clueless Hollywood bean counters with unrealistic and overinflated expectations causing this.
This is the kind of action filled, crazy and fairly violent movie that you would expect from a Mad Max movie.
The action is good, the characters are good, the settings are good (the Bullet Farm was mostly a whole in the ground and a bit underwhelming though), and the story is actually not bad at all.
Also, there is no woke, far left preaching that I could notice in the movie which in todays world is a great plus.
Overall I really liked the movie and its two and a half hour run length did not really feel too long.
If I should complain about something it would be that they just skipped over the war between Dementus and Immortan Joe with some bla bla about humans always having fought wars.
The movie also felt a bit “sanitized”, that is lacking grittiness and gore, for being a Mad Max movie. The R rating that it apparently got in the US is pretty ridiculous. In France it got a 13+ rating.
However, that is minor nitpicking.

George Miller definitely had it him to make it epic.
I hadn't seen Fury Road since it came out, so I took the liberty to watch it and finish it an hour before I went to go see Furiosa, and personally, I liked Furiosa more.
The antagonist felt a lot more connected to the plot and the world building was better, you were able to get more of a scope of the world.
Anya Taylor-Joy is one of my favorite actresses, everything she's in is good and this is no exception.
The cinematography of this movie was also more creative.
The only drawback for me was that the vehicle designs did not seem as special as Fury Road's. They just seemed like the basic motorcycles and 18 wheelers, which isn't that bad, it's just a little sad.
Overall a great watch, better than any of the fast and furious movies for sure.
MangoMeter:
8/10

Some decent action sequences as expected though, from my memory, doesn't come close to the epic chaos from Fury Road. The acting for the most part was fine and Chris Hemsworth seemed to be having some fun in his villain role while Anya Taylor-Joy was fine as Furiosa. However, having this coming out 9 years after Fury Road and a spin-off of a character that frankly I had little interest in, was the downfall of this prequel. Beyond that, the plot itself wasn't enthralling and at times I was pretty bored.
I wish we got an actual Mad Max: Fury Road sequel with Tom Hardy; why they went this route is puzzling, but not to mention taking so long to get it out. It's not too surprising this bombed at the box office and was the death nail of the franchise. **2.75/5**

There’s no doubt that “Furiosa” is a strong, entertaining, and high quality film, but director George Miller‘s latest installment in the Mad Max franchise falls short in delivering the same fresh and original experience as “Fury Road.” Miller builds on the legacy of the 2015 Oscar-winning hit, but the film still struggles with a repetitive narrative (and a tired retread of visuals) that fails to capture the groundbreaking innovations that made its predecessor such a worldwide phenomenon. I liked this movie a lot, but I certainly didn’t love it.
As the world collapses, young Furiosa (Alyla Browne) is forcibly taken from the Green Place of Many Mothers and captured by a formidable Biker Horde led by the Warlord Dementus (Chris Hemsworth). As they traverse the Wasteland, they encounter the Citadel, ruled by Immortan Joe (Lachy Hulme). Amidst the power struggle between these two tyrants, Furiosa (Anya Taylor-Joy) must endure numerous trials to gather the resources needed to find her way back home.
The film tells the origin story of the renegade warrior (and certified badass) Furiosa before her encounter with Mad Max. It’s a prequel to “Fury Road,” and this movie builds a satisfying history to the unlikely female hero. The first half of the story is the most compelling, as the narrative traces Furiosa’s journey from a young girl held captive in a brutal world to her development into a fierce combatant. The first part of her history is also filled with the most emotional depth, outlining the motivations of her character and the harsh realities that shaped her. It adds layers of complexity to the character, which is why I found this part of the movie to be the most engaging.
The second half began to wear me down as it falls into a repetitive cycle of desert chases and action scenes that feel all too familiar. While they’re executed with Miller’s signature flair, they seem lacking in innovation. The whole “been there, done that” vibe really puts a damper on things. I think part of the problem here is that “Fury Road” set such a high bar with its inventive visual style and storytelling, and a lot of that is replicated (flaming fireballs, armored trucks, vast expanses of golden deserts…even some of the exact same stunts are in play). This makes the film too predictable and slightly disappointing, especially when that element of surprise and eye-popping awe has come to define the franchise. The action is a blast and the post-apocalyptic setting and costumes are exceptional, but the envelope isn’t quite pushed as far as it could’ve been.
The brightest spot is, without question, Simon Duggan‘s cinematography. This is a gorgeous looking movie from beginning to end, and the visuals capture the brutality as well as the stark beauty of the wasteland. The special effects are also flawless, but all of these technical achievements (and strong performances from the cast) can’t quite compensate for the weaker elements — although I would venture to guess that diehard fans aren’t going to care.
“Furiosa” is a worthy addition to the Mad Max saga, even if it doesn’t reach the creative heights nor deliver the groundbreaking experience that delighted all of us with “Fury Road.”
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

**Wonder Woman **
Lately, it seems Hollywood has been casting great actresses in strong female roles but pairing them with subpar writing. This movie is not one of those. I went in with the mindset of "here we go again," but came out surprisingly satisfied. The story, acting, and action are all top-notch, and it seamlessly leads into "Mad Max: Fury Road" without missing a beat. Don't skip this one—it's probably the best in the franchise.

This installment of the Mad Max saga was disappointing. Personally, I would have preferred a continuation of Furiosa's story with Charlize Theron rather than an origin story. However, once Anya Taylor-Joy was cast, my excitement returned. Her performance in The Menu is one of my favorites, and she has never given a bad performance. Despite my anticipation, I walked out of this movie feeling underwhelmed.
The film feels a bit detached from the franchise. Returning to an origin story, especially in this series, feels like a misstep. The strength of the first four movies lies in their forward momentum and the development of their characters. We've already seen the beginning in Mad Max; what the audience craves is progress, ideally with Max at the forefront but I would like to see 'Furiosa' along for future rides.
While the cinematography is undeniably gorgeous, the editing leaves much to be desired. The film spends too much time on areas that don't align with what makes a Mad Max film great. For example, the original films excelled in their high-octane action sequences and tight pacing, whereas this installment meanders, losing the kinetic energy that defines the series and limits an entire war to a montage.
Chris Hemsworth's portrayal of Dementus is a mixed bag. He brings a certain fun to the role, but his character often feels frustratingly inconsistent. There are moments where Dementus' choices seem out of character or simply don’t make sense, disrupting the narrative flow and diminishing the overall impact of the film. Some could argue that his demented nature is the reason for his decisions but even that idea falls flat.
One of the most disappointing aspects is that this movie lacks the fun, rewatchable quality of its predecessors. The previous films in the series are known for their relentless pace and compelling characters, making them enjoyable to revisit. This installment, however, doesn’t capture that same magic, leaving it feeling somewhat deflated in comparison.
While 'Furiosa' offers some stunning visals and strong performances, it ultimately fails to live up to the legacy of its predecessors. The decision to focus on an origin story rather than continuing Furiosa's journey feels like a missed opportunity. Fans of the franchise may find some enjoyment in the film, but it doesn’t possess the same exhilarating spirit that made the earlier movies iconic.
Moving forward, it would be more satisfying to see the series return to its roots, focusing on character-driven narratives that push the story forward. A continuation of Furiosa’s journey or a new chapter with Max would likely resonate more with audiences, capturing the essence of what makes Mad Max an enduring and beloved franchise.