Preface:
There was a reason that I wasn't going to review this film despite loving Mad Max Fury Road. As of this writing, that reason is still something of an infuriating mystery to me but one I will try to explain in the last paragraph. But the more time I spent after seeing the film last week, the more I realised that Furiosa had crept in and settled deeply into my mind and it wasn't going anywhere. This subsequent review is a celebration but with a caveat that I will try hard to explain in the postscript if, in the act of writing it, I can figure out what it is... I was so intrigued by my ambivalence for what clearly is an astounding technical triumph, I wrote this review and then trotted off to the cinema to have another look… Inserts in italics throughout provide an additional take on my views of the film.

First off, a short non-spoiler synopsis. After a global nuclear catastrophe unfolded after the first Mad Max, we are introduced to a child living in the Green Place of Many Mothers, a safe haven for a tribe mostly of women. Far from the brutality and radiation poisoning of the surrounding desert and the towering Citadel introduced in Fury Road, young Furiosa takes chances sabotaging rogue bikers' motorbikes while out on a fruit raid with a friend. This leads her to be snatched away by said bikers who are under the leadership of Dr. Dementus. Trying hard and with some success keeping the Green Place a secret, Furiosa's mother, with a sniper's rifle, just fails to stop her daughter falling into the grip of Dementus himself. Through a tip off, Dementus finds out about the Citadel where water and basic 'homegrown' food seem to be available. He gives up Furiosa as a bargaining chip to enter into a deal with Immortan Joe, the monstrous, giant toothed-jawed horror in charge of the Citadel who then sends Furiosa to be locked up with his many wives. She escapes and over the years pretends to be a boy at the Citadel and learns how engines work and to handle weaponry preparing for her inevitable and long orchestrated revenge upon Dementus…

By George! Miller's commitment to this level of filmmaking is never less than stunning. His direction, decisions when to move the camera and when to hold back on the kineticism dovetail perfectly with the required editing style employed by the two editors, his own wife Margaret Sixel and Eliot Knapman, the former having scooped the double (Oscar and BAFTA) for best editing in 2015 for Fury Road. It's reported that the details that were important for an audience to grasp were always literally presented in the centre of frame and cut to emphasise that. As a film editor myself, it was very heartening to hear that Miller employed his wife simply because she'd never cut an action film before so would bring something different to the table. It's not only actors that are typecast. That something different applies to all editors. When you hire Margaret Sixel, you are bringing her life experience and technical expertise to the table but all editors are different and will each bring a part of their own character to the job at hand. There is not one way to cut a genre film or any film for that matter.

The wonderful thing about cinema (even sequels and prequels) is that while elements may be common, the whole is always a prototype. While Fury Road was almost non-stop spectacular action, there are moments of regrouping and reassessing in Furiosa which would be even more welcome if some of the narrative could have been accordioned somewhat. Fury Road was two hours long (with a shooting ratio of 240:1!) while Furiosa clocks in at two hours and 28 minutes… I did wonder if this two hour plus spate of movies recently is an era-specific aspect of mainstream filmmaking. Like a thousand page book, the experience itself can sometimes seem heavy going but while I was aware that Furiosa could have been cut shorter, I was never bored. Even Miller's moments of peace and reflection are expertly presented. The one thing that Fury Road will always have over Furiosa is that tingling element of pure, undiluted surprise. Unsurprisingly, the visual style and palette of the film is identical to its previous successor, a verbal contradiction to be sure but what a small joy to present it that way. What we have that sets Furiosa apart is a different take, an insider's, almost, on the epically barbaric sub-cultures that were created after the second big bang. And there is no good news.

Max Rockatansky is credited in Furiosa as played by Jacob Tomuri, Tom Hardy's stuntman in Fury Road - blink and I did actually miss him – though I did clock him on a second viewing – see Postscript. He has his own history with his demons. He's the laconic, iconic loner whose ethics and morality are deeply stress-tested but he always comes through, however battered and smashed, doing the right thing in a world of wrong. He can be trusted as an outsider and a protagonist... "haunted by the demons of his past. And it was here, in this blighted place, he learned to live again…" He is the hero we know. But Furiosa, like 8 year-old Debbie, kidnapped by Comanche Native Americans in John Ford's 1956 classic The Searchers, has been initiated into an alien community so has learned how to survive, to adapt, growing with a firmly-set iron will to bring her own justice to the man who robbed her of everything (if that's not a spoiler).

I cannot offer too many superlatives for all aspects of the movie's production. The costumes, the stunts, the production design, the score, the practical effects and the VFX (yes, calm down). Someone needs to educate audiences that proclaiming primacy of practical over computer generated imagery misses an Grand Canyon-wide point. You cannot make garlic bread without garlic or bread. All techniques are now used blended in together without any favouritism or prejudice towards one or the other. Effects simply have to be photo-realistically believable. I didn't spot nor was I supposed to that Anya Taylor Joy's face was subtly tracked onto the actress playing her as a child from a small to a greater percentage chronologically. When we first see Taylor Joy as Furiosa, it's as seamless a transition you could ask for. This is how to wield visual effects. It may upset people to know given its megastar's red carpet insistence of the reality of the flying and the cry of "No CG!"**, that all of Top Gun: Maverick's planes were computer generated over real planes that were flown or generated as needed and the presence of 480 credited visual effects artists lays bare Mr. Cruise's claim as utterly ridiculous. I bet marketing put him up to it. Many of Furiosa's skies and locations are digitally created, as were Fury Road's and there seemed to be a lot more CG in this prequel (some of the dogs did bother me a little and if they were real, trained animals, I apologise in advance) but hey. If you are interested, seek out a short series of YouTube shorts entitled 'No CG is just Invisible CG' parts 1 to 4.** It knowledgably puts to rest the argument that has elevated practical effects above CG because the effects we do not notice as effects vastly outnumber the bad stuff that we see and complain about. FX rant (almost) over. On a second viewing the CG cars and people are a lot more recognisable but let's let those go for the moment.

The actors, despite the length of make-up time and discomfort in the heat of the various desert locations, all seem to be having an absolute ball. Anya Taylor Joy is able to convey what she's thinking and how she came to think that way with only her extraordinary face as a signifier. And as an action heroine, she's convincingly physical, smart and emotionally extremely hesitant. As Praetorian Jack played by Cormoran Strike himself, Tom Burke says to her, she has "…a batch full of purposeful savagery," and he meant that as a compliment. They become a trusted pair looking out for each other, that trust developing into a rather touching bond at night under the stars. This is, sad to say, the only moment of hope and tenderness in the entire film. The current thunder god, Chris Hemsworth, seems to relish the complete, desolate horror of another man haunted by his own demons. We are invited to empathise with Dementus despite his repeated acts of intense savagery and while I'll say that he's a convincing bastard, a charismatic figure who also promotes the most awful violence and cruelty, I couldn't warm to him nor, I think, was I actually supposed to. His faux erudition and theatrical speeches do nothing to blunt or make more 'entertaining' the violence he oversees.The death of the original 'Toecutter', actor Hugh Keays-Byrne in 2020 meant a lookalike was required. Enter Lachy Hulme as Immortan Joe who does a convincing job replicating the original actor's performance and gross physicality. But aside from the leads, there are two stand out performances in smaller roles that made huge impressions.

Charlee Fraser as Mary Jabassa, Furiosa's mother, makes an astonishing impact as the woman given the job of protecting the whereabouts of her tribe's Green Place. Despite being fourteen years younger than actress Summer Glau (River Tam in Joss Whedon's Firefly TV seriesand spin-off feature Serenity), she exudes the same air of long-limbed grace. Despite this being her second film role, she is utterly convincing as an sniper and as close hand-to-hand combat rains down on her, she is also totally believable as a woman protecting her daughter (who, alas, returns to her mother only to… spoiler). Even the smallest parts in the film show enormous care and total dedication to character. Special kudos to Alyla Browne portraying Furiosa as a child and teenager. The VFX-aided gradual segues between actors as the same character, as I'm sure has been noted already not least by myself, is sublime. Like Mark Kermode, I can easily agree that the 40 minute pre-Anya Taylor Joy segments could have been shortened but as I also said, I was still thoroughly entertained.

Many online have bleated to their Twitterati followers (Xerati just doesn't work for me) of the 'failure' of this 'box office bomb'. I took exception to this and dug around for facts to support my position. Hmm. At my second cinema viewing I was the only one in the cinema though a lone soul did join me in the dark just before curtain up… Very discouraging. Fury Road ended up bringing in a box office of over twice its production cost but a 'hit' in Hollywood parlance is a film that makes two and a half times its production budget to cover marketing and overheads. Furiosa has, to date (over a mere six days, come on) made over a third of its production costs so has an uphill battle to compete with Fury Road. There's also the argument that a prequel is already scuppered by its very nature. We know for example that Furiosa, while suffering greatly, will be back because we've already seen the future. While I'm sympathetic to that idea, it didn't bother me at all. Even if the film had legs (making a constant and consistent profit over a longer period of time), those legs will be cut just like its losses on the way to becoming available on streaming platforms. By far the most recent film with legs was The Greatest Showman which spent eleven weeks in UK cinemas, sometimes surging in box office performance instead of a rapid decline like almost every other film. But Furiosa is an artistic and critical success and I know that means very little unless it hits big with audiences. But that still means a lot to me. Reports in the press a few days ago are suggesting that the key and once core movie-going demographic is simply not turning up at the cinema and that (gulp) cinemagoing will be equitable with theatregoing in the near future. Wow. How depressing. I have no idea how Hollywood can or wants to course correct. It's no secret that the internet is awash with critics pushing the idea that films more concerned with ideological virtue signalling than improving their screenplays have dashed themselves on the rocks of hard number crunching but while the phenomenal business of Barbenheimer last year gave me some hope that cinema had just been defibrillated, it looks like it's back in the A and E…

Postscript:
So what was my problem? It's still hard to say exactly. Both family members I watched it with came up with two remarks both of which I agreed with at the time based on a feeling that surfaced watching just the very first fifteen minutes. Everything seemed so and also too familiar. One remark was "It was a film of horribly damaged people relentlessly doing horrible and unspeakably violent things." That's hard to disagree with because it's true. Even I really didn't want to see two scenes (thank you George, for kicking up the sand in one of them obscuring the horror). But the other remark came close to how I felt, an unease, a feeling that something was lacking. That remark was "It had no soul." While I don't feel like that now six days after watching it (please see my review for proof) something was off to me even as I was thoroughly entertained by it. It wasn't that arse-numbing feeling of, after the first few seconds, having to sit through a live action remake of a film I knew backwards (The Lion King). Had I been alone, I would have walked out of that one. The closest experience I can compare it to was watching a film in the 70s that had all the ingredients of what I loved about cinema as a teen; a compelling conspiracy, jeopardy, car stunts, humour and an aerial dogfight that was astounding as there was no other alternative than to shoot it for real. I was stunned leaving the cinema for all the wrong reasons, feeling like the film had no effect on me at all. It was like a shadow of an experience and to this day I cannot put my finger on why Capricorn One was so underwhelming. I loved the score though. Apologies for the woolly conclusion. I will go and see Furiosa again while it's still on the big screen... and maybe pen another addendum.

In fact, why the hell not today?

Four Hours Later… Another Addendum After A Second Viewing:
Well, I think I've nailed it. That shadow of negativity, regardless of the film's vast entertainment value and its obvious nature being a technical tour de force, is the cynical and overpowering idea that there is simply no graspable hope, no humanity, no light left in this Mad Max universe. You may not need any of those things to enjoy the film. Up until I saw Furiosa for the first time, I didn't think I needed any of those things either but the film is relentlessly and nihilistically grim and horrific both in its making of monsters and its depiction of its monsters' actions. There may be a satisfying revenge narrative… There may even be redemption… But there is no hope. This is borne by the fact that if you double-bill the two latest instalments back to front (or is that front to back?), perhaps Max and Furiosa's last ever so subtle nods to each other (a perfect moment by the way) as Max is swallowed up by the crowd and Furiosa is taken aloft at the Citadel, may just be enough icing on the two-tyred cake. They are nods of recognition between fellow warriors and respected fighters, people who know what's right. But whether both almost imperceptible gestures can satisfy and withstand the onslaught of horror and violence as meted out to Furiosa as a child, teen and adult… Up for debate.

In terms of those aspects of the series that could be shored up against the obligatory wasteland violence; Mad Max had a family at its core and a tight friendship, Mad Max 2 (The Road Warrior) had the white-garbed gasoline refiners who still toiled and yearned for a better world. Max himself even cracks a smile at the close realising he's been duped. Beyond Thunderdome had the uncynical children's gang that promote Max as a saviour. He makes an heroic sacrifice and plants hope among the ruins of civilisation. One final point. There are countless films out there that are violent, dark and offer no hope. I'm certain I adore a great many of those so why did Furiosa kick up my post-second viewing response? Could it be that it is so well executed, no pun intended, that it really got under my skin? As Furiosa's opening narration attests… "How must we brave its cruelties…" From this writer's perspective, I seem to have failed to do just that.

* https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-interview/what-george-miller-has-learned-in-forty-five-years-of-making-mad-max-movies

** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo