There is a ton of pressure on screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely.

Marvel Studios on Thursday announced the writing duo will be responsible for penning the third "Avengers" film, "Infinity War," which is actually a two-parter that's split over 2018 and 2019.

Markus and McFeely also wrote the first two "Captain America" films, which both earned positive reviews across the board. But they're also writing next year's "Captain America: Civil War," which just started filming this week.

Between these three films — "Civil War" in 2016 and "Avengers: Infinity War" in 2018 and 2019 — Markus and McFeely have their hands full.

No pressure, right?

With this month's release of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," Marvel now claims the most lucrative movie franchise of all time.

Even more impressive: By the time "Avengers: Infinity War" releases in 2019, Marvel's three-phase plan for its cinematic universe will have taken a 10-year road spanning 21 different films.

Many of these films include tie-ins or subtle hints to other Marvel movies, but the "Avengers" movies are responsible for showcasing as many superheroes as humanly possible. Next year's "Civil War" is guaranteed to have a similarly epic feel: It will star two of the series' biggest stars — Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans as Iron Man and Captain America, respectively — and the storyline is famous for including nearly every Marvel character under the sun, including Spider-Man, who finally has the green light to appear in Marvel films.

"Civil War" will undoubtedly be a huge draw for Marvel fans, so it's up to Markus and McFeely to pull off a film that does justice to one of the best story arcs in the comic books. In the comics, a tragedy at an elementary school forces the government to enact a law that requires all superheroes register their real identities; more than any other Marvel film, this plotline is heavily political and asks big, difficult questions. It will be up to Markus and McFeely to make sure this polarizing story is both entertaining and provocative for massive audiences. 

But their work doesn't stop in 2016.

As soon as that film wraps, the writing duo will turn to the daunting task of a two-part "Avengers" movie.

Just ask Joss Whedon: People have incredibly high expectations for the "Avengers" franchise. They want big action montages, funny and clever dialogue throughout, and tons of references to past and future films. They want to see all their favorite actors get plenty of time to shine individually. A ton of money and star power goes into these "Avengers" films, and the story and dialogue needs to be equally strong.

But "Infinity War" isn't just another "Avengers" movie. This particular two-parter is the culmination of over 10 years of nonstop story building, character arcs and tie-ins. This is the biggest moment for all these characters — maybe they'll live, or maybe they'll die. But it's all about these two movies.

"Phase 3" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, according to Marvel, signifies the end of the journey that began in 2008. For the most successful film franchise of all time, this is a ginormous task for two writers. Even though Markus and McFeely have a strong pedigree of penning great films — and their work keeps getting better, it seems, "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" was delightful — the Marvel cinematic universe ultimately rests on the shoulders of these two men.

Of course, Markus and McFeely won't be alone in these endeavors. They'll have the help of Anthony and Joe Russo, who helmed "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and will direct "Civil War" and the "Avengers" two-parter. But there's still a ton of work to be done before Marvel's Phase 3 wraps up, and it will be up to these two writers to weave together all of these colorful characters and story arcs introduced over the last 10 years into a cohesive tapestry for "Infinity War": A similar task would be writing a movie that includes every person who appeared in the "Colbert Report" finale.

“Chris and Steve have been an integral part of the Marvel family since the early days of Phase 1," Marvel president and producer Kevin Feige said in a press release. "Their work speaks for itself. We couldn’t be more excited to have them with us to help guide the Avengers through their biggest story yet.”

SEE ALSO: 'Avengers: Age Of Ultron' is a masterful film that asks big questions

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel's new 'Ant-Man' trailer looks even better than 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

One of the best parts of "Avengers: Age of Ultron," hands down, is the big reveal of a new superhero, Vision.

We won't spoil much about the character if you haven't seen the film, but the droid, masterfully played by Marvel veteran Paul Bettany, steals just about every scene in which he appears.

You couldn't imagine anyone else in the role. 

So it's incredible to imagine that moments before the 43-year-old actor was offered the role, a producer told him he'd never get another gig in Hollywood.

During an interview with Business Insider, Bettany broke down how he first found out about playing Vision, and how the news couldn't have come at a better moment.

"I’d actually just had a meeting with a producer who had told me I was never going to work again and I stepped out into Hollywood and I sat on the sidewalk with my feet in the gutter and I thought ‘F--- me,'" Bettany told Business Insider.

What happened next was unexpected.

"My phone rang and it was Joss Whedon and he said, ‘Do you want to play the Vision in the next ‘Avengers’ movie?’" Bettany continued. "And, I said yes. And I sort of looked up to heaven and thought karma’s very quick these days ... and [I] flipped the building behind me the finger.”

"It happened just like that. I sat down and my phone rang. Very funny. But you know if I had a dollar for every time somebody told me my career was over, my career could be over," he chuckled.

The English actor said he wasn't familiar with the character when offered the role.

"No, not at all," he said. "It was a very different world in the ‘70s when I grew up. I guess they [Avengers] were around, but we really had our own comics and stuff like the Eagle with Dan Dare and the Mekon and stuff like that. Really, what we knew was from TV shows ... We knew Batman, and we knew Spider-Man, and we knew Superman."

Bettany did end up getting a bunch of comics on the character to read up on Vision. This is the second role Bettany has played in a Marvel film after a recurring role since 2008 as Tony Stark's A.I. J.A.R.V.I.S.

"Everybody I would talk to knows the characters and read comics as kids, and we just didn’t," Bettany said. "But also you’re working with sort of the professors of the Marvel world so if you ever have a question ... [Marvel president] Kevin Feige and [executive producer] Jeremy Latcham, [director] Joss Whedon ... they’re like encyclopedias."

SEE ALSO: Marvel broke its own movie rule to let Paul Bettany play a new superhero in "Avengers: Age of Ultron"

AND: 9 characters who have been able to lift Thor's hammer

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's Why Stan Lee Says You Should Never Do Something Just For Money

Considered one of the greatest artists of all time, Orson Welles is best known for his legendary work as an actor and director on Broadway. His work included scaring the country with his fake “The War of the Worlds” radio broadcast and then going to Hollywood and creating masterpieces like “Citizen Kane,” for which he won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay in 1942.

But his later years brought financial turmoil and were marked by a stubborn obsession with having creative freedom on anything he touched. He ended up living in exile in Europe for more than a decade.

Then in the summer of 1970, Welles returned to Hollywood with dreams of a comeback — but on his own terms.

He prepared to self-finance and direct a film he “wrote” (it’s still uncertain if there ever was a complete script) titled “The Other Side of the Wind.”

The story would take place during a single day in the life of a legendary, self-destructive filmmaker named Jake Hannaford (played by John Huston) who returns to Hollywood after years of a self-imposed exile. Despite the obvious similarity to his own life, Welles always insisted that the film was not autobiographical.

Like all things in Welles' life, the proposed eight-week shoot on a micro-budget did not go as planned. The film would consume the maverick’s life until his death in 1985. And to this day, the unfinished film has been tied up in legal and financial battles that you’d think could only have been possible in a sensational story penned by Welles.

In the new book, “Orson Welles’s Last Movie: The Making of ‘The Other Side of the Wind,’” author Josh Karp looks back on the turbulent making of the film, to help pay for it Welles took on commercial work, and the bizarre happenings related to the film following his death.

In a related note, just this week (which happens to fall on Welles’ 100th birthday) it was announced that a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo had begun to raise the finishing funds needed to get the film closer to being released to audiences. (Welles completed shooting, but never finished editing.)

Here are excerpts from the book, which is currently on sale.

Orson Welles always loved telling a good story. It didn’t matter if it was for the screen or at a dinner party. As Karp writes below, one of those stories, about Welles' fistfight with Ernest Hemingway, led to the inspiration for “The Other Side of the Wind.”

It was May 1937: before “War of the Worlds,” before “Citizen Kane,” and more than thirty years before he shot the first frame of “The Other Side of the Wind.”

Hired to narrate Hemingway’s script for “The Spanish Earth,” a pro-leftist Spanish Civil War documentary made by Jorvis Ivens, Orson entered a Manhattan recording studio and encountered the legendary author.

On the day the two men met, Welles was only twenty-two but had already achieved more than most artists dream of accomplishing in a lifetime. He was a Broadway wunderkind with his own theater company and his own radio show. As a radio performer he was making more than $1,000 a week during the Depression and was the voice of the title character on the wildly popular radio detective show “The Shadow,” meaning he was heard in millions of living rooms each week.

It was a juncture in his life when Welles was so busy that he allegedly hired an ambulance (sirens blaring to avoid traffic) to get him from radio gigs to the theater on time. It wasn’t illegal and he was Orson Welles, so why not?

By the time he met Hemingway, Welles had staged an all-black “Macbeth” set in nineteenth-century Haiti and was working on a fascist-themed, modern-dress “Julius Caesar.” Within a year he’d appear on the cover of Time magazine. Then that Halloween there was the broadcast of “The War of the Worlds,” and if anyone hadn’t heard of Orson Welles by November 1983, they were either living in a cave or dead.

Now famous, he went to Hollywood, where by the age of twenty-six he’d co-written, directed, and starred in his first feature-length film: “Citizen Kane.” It was a time, said one friend, where “anything seemed possible” when you were working with Orson.

Anything was possible. Everything was possible. And the day he met Hemingway, Orson was on the cusp of exploding as an artist and a star.

Hemingway, meanwhile, was thirty-seven and had already written “A Farewell to Arms” and “The Sun Also Rises.” He’d driven an ambulance in World War I, where he’d been injured by mortar fire and witnessed violent death firsthand while still in his early twenties. Hemingway knew life in the most physical sense. He was a man’s man who stalked big game, reeled in gigantic marlins, and chased adventure to such an extreme that years later he survived two plane crashes in the same day while hunting in Africa. It fit perfectly with the image he cultivated — one crash simply wasn’t enough. It had been a life consciously marked by death and violence, things that were in his blood and affirmed his existence.

They didn’t know it, but Welles and Hemingway shared more than artistry and big personalities. Both men had a deep love for Spain and the art of bullfighting, and each was friendly with legendary torero Antonio Ordóñez. But in May 1937, their shared passions were of no consequence. What mattered was what Orson did after entering the studio.

Having reworked Shakespeare, Welles likely didn’t think twice about trying to improve Hemingway’s script. Orson claimed he’d tried only to make it more Hemingwayesque, cutting the words back to their essence and letting images on-screen speak for themselves. Perhaps they could do away with lines such as “Here are the faces of men who are close to death” and just show the faces themselves.

Shocked by Welles’s audacity, Hemingway immediately went after the softest spot he could find and used Orson’s theater background to infer that he was gay and didn’t know a thing about war or other manly pursuits. More than a decade later, Hemingway would tell John Huston that every time Welles said “infantry” it “was like a cocksucker swallowing.”

Not yet fat, young Orson Welles was still a big man, tall and sturdy, with large feet. Despite his size, however, Welles wasn’t prone to violence. But having dealt with bullies since his youth, he knew just how to retaliate. If the hairy-chested author wanted a faggot, Orson would give him one. So, great actor that he was, Welles camped it up and drove Hemingway over the edge.

“Mister Hemingway,” Welles lisped in the swishiest voice he could muster, “how strong you are and how big you are!”

The counterpunch hit Hemingway exactly where Orson intended, and the novelist exploded, allegedly picking up a chair and attacking Welles, who grabbed a chair of his own. The aftermath, as Orson described it, was a cartoonish sound booth brawl played out with bloody images of the Spanish Civil War flickered behind them.

Eventually, however, both men concluded that the fight was insane, collapsed to the floor in laughter, and shared a bottle of whiskey. Thus began a friendship that lasted until Hemingway shot himself in the head on July 2, 1961. — "Orson Welles’s Last Movie" (pgs 7-9)

In the early years of shooting “The Other Side of the Wind” (1970), Welles was able to rent time on the MGM studio backlot at a cheap rate because he had his crew pretend they were UCLA film students. On the dilapidated sets of old Westerns shot there, Welles and his team filmed scenes that didn’t involve Hannaford (Welles hadn’t cast Huston yet; when they needed a shot of Hannaford’s back or a line said off-camera, Welles would play him). Though the crew quickly learned that Welles’ methods were unorthodox and volatile.

Much time at MGM, however, was consumed by Orson searching for inspiration and without a clear vision of how he wanted things to appear on-screen. Many scenes were rehearsed and filmed numerous times, after which Orson would change things around and do it again, and again, until the right image or interpretation emerged. Then he'd move the camera again and reenvision the action from a different perspective.

On another film, the producer might have pushed Orson to be more efficient. But since it was how own money and he had an accommodating crew, Wells had total control over the set, how long they worked, and what they shot. As a result, when the lot was available for only one final weekend, Wells had the crew work seventy-two hours straight until they got all the footage they needed.

Because of the free-form nature of the MGM shoot, Welles often became exasperated over technical glitches or shots taken from the wrong angle. Many times he would lament that they were "losing the light" and explode in a way that terrified some but was part of the job to most.

One outburst took place when Welles sent someone out for dinner during the late afternoon. Upon his return, the crew member handed out wrapped plates of food and plastic silverware. Orson went ballistic, launching into a twenty-minute tantrum about how they'd lost the light.

"I wanted sandwiches!" he screamed as the precious light dissipated behind him. "So that they could eat with one hand!"

Everyone, including those stifling laughter, put on an appropriate face out of respect for Orson and to avoid the line of fire.

[Actor on the film Bob] Random recalled that Welles blew up on another occasion and told everyone to get off the set and never return. Knowing it was just another explosion, they left and then came back as if nothing had happened when [the film’s cinematographer, Gary] Graver called later that week. — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pg 77)

Most of the crew were obsessed with pleasing Welles. That was evident by 1974, when the production moved to Carefree, Arizona, and Welles was in need of a few props for a scene.

Among the other things Orson needed during the shoot were: a real human bone; fake but authentic posters for old Hannaford films that existed only in Orson's imagination; dummies to fill a crowd scene; a cigar store Indian for Jake's den; and hunting trophies, including a swordfish for the mantel.

Anywhere other than the desert, it might have been easy to find a swordfish, but in Arizona they were hard to come by, so Orson sent [crew member Glenn] Jacobson to a Hollywood prop house. After driving from Carefree to Los Angeles and back, Jacobson proudly placed an enormous grouper over the mantel.

Welles took one look and said, "No! I want a swordfish! Like in Hemingway!"

So the grouper sat in a corner and the search continued until [one of the film’s actors Peter] Jason asked a bartender where he could find a big stuffed swordfish and was given the name of a local taxidermist with one on his own mantel.

Jason called the man, explained his predicament, and was lent a beautiful, much treasured swordfish only because it was for Orson Welles. Jason placed it in the back of a station wagon and drove back a Carefree, holding the fish's delicate bill the entire way.

Knowing how happy he'd make Welles, Jason was beaming as he and [crew member and future Hollywood producer Frank] Marshall brought the swordfish inside and placed it carefully on the living room floor during dinner.

"Oh my God!" Welles said. "It's fantastic!"

While Welles continued to express his pleasure, Jason warned everyone that he was responsible for the swordfish and that no one was to touch or move it. But minutes later there was a crunch, and Jason turned to see that [crew member] Larry Jackson had accidentally stepped on the bill and broken it into three pieces.

With everyone shrieking and moaning "like they were at an Indian funeral," Jason tore Jackson to pieces and then spent the next several days finding the proper shade of black, blue, and silver spray paint to glue the bill back together so they could see it over the mantle. It then remained there for weeks and weeks, while the taxidermist called to see when he'd get his swordfish back. — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pgs 141-142)

The bizarre stories on set only increased when John Huston came on the film.

"Don't worry," Welles assured Larry Jackson, who was lying in the trunk of the convertible, holding a boom mike. "We won't even be going that fast."

Welles and Jackson were about to shoot a scene in which Hannaford drives to his party, with [famous director and Welles friend Peter] Bogdanovich (formerly in the backseat as [another character in the film] Higgam in August 1970) no sitting in the passenger seat with a crew member crammed into his footwell. Orson and Graver, meanwhile, strapped a camera to his side of the car and squished into the back with handhelds.

Having already consumed a considerable amount of vodka that day, Huston pulled the car onto a street, where he drove only briefly before running up a curb onto a street, where he drove only briefly before running up a curb onto somebody's front lawn, clipping a tree, and destroying the side-mounted camera, which swung violently toward — and nearly decapitated — Bogdanovich.

When the car stopped, Welles looked at the camera and said, "I'll have to do another commercial to pay for that." Then he turned his attention to Huston, wanting to know what just happened. Though Hannaford was supposed to be driving recklessly, this was more than Orson had in mind.

Huston, however, was neither acting nor drunk. Instead, he explained that long ago he'd concluded that drinking and driving didn't mix and that he'd have to make a choice of one or the other. Drinking won, and for decades he'd hardly been behind the wheel.

Undeterred, Orson yelled, "Action!" and Huston steered back onto the road and drove for a bit before he was told to merge onto a highway. Following the directions, Huston turned the car and entered by going the wrong way down an exit ramp and into high-speed traffic on an expressway, with Jackson clinging to the trunk, thinking, "The obituary won't even mention that I was here."

With everyone screaming and the cameras rolling, Huston swerved away from oncoming cars until he was able to jump the meridian with a hard left and then calmly join the flow of traffic on the other side.

When they exited the highway and Huston pulled over, everyone was deadly silent, until Welles sighed deeply and said, "Thanks, John. That'll do.” — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pgs 152-154)

At the time of Welles’ death of a heart attack in the fall of 1985, “The Other Side of the Wind” was still in post production and Welles was in battles with his financiers over its completion. The drama around the film only increased in the following years. But Welles’ longtime mistress and star of “Wind,” Oja Kodar, was determined to hand the film over to another iconic filmmaker for completion. She first tried John Huston in 1986, but petty matters led to that not going forward. Kodar then tried to reach out to some of the filmmakers that made up New Hollywood.

With Huston out, Oja and Graver showed “The Other Side of the Wind” to several prominent directors, including Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, George Lucas, and Clint Eastwood, hoping that one of them would take on the project.

After striking out with Stone, Lucas, and Spielberg, Oja found out that Peter Jason had recently appeared as Eastwood's commanding officer in “Heartbreak Ridge” and called him, insisting that he take the film to Eastwood, who had a reputation for rescuing obscure and offbeat projects from the scrap heap. Jason told Oja that she should write a letter that he'd drop off at Eastwood's Malpaso Productions on the Warner Bros. lot. When he read the handwritten note in Oja's somewhat broken English, however, Jason retyped the letter, fixed the grammar, and took it to Eastwood's office.

Expecting nothing, Jason was back at home when he received a call from a secretary at Malpaso who asked him to wait on the line for Eastwood.

"Pete?" the “Dirty Harry” star said when he came on the line. "It's Clint. What is this?"

"It's Orson Welles's last movie," Jason replied.

"Can I look at it today?" Eastwood asked.

Jason quickly called Graver, and they grabbed reels of two scenes (the rain-car-sex scene and Hannaford's arrival at his party) and drove them to Eastwood's office, where they showed the footage to Clint and his associates Tom Rooker and David Valdes.

At one point Valdes said, "There's nothing here we can use," and left the screening, which Rooker said everyone had come into anticipating a lost treasure, only to see a film that "was all over the place and kind of a mess."

Dejected, Graver and Jason struck their film cans back in the trunk and began driving off the lot when Rooker ran out and told them Eastwood was intrigued by some of what he'd seen. "He couldn't figure out how you did the rain on the window," Rooker said, adding that Eastwood was leaving the next day but would love to see a script or have the film put on tape so he could try to figure it out when he returned from Africa, where he was portraying a fictionalized Huston in “White Hunter Black Heart.”

While Eastwood was gone, Jason and Graver took footage to Eastwood's editor five reels at a time. But when “White Hunter” didn't do well at the box office, it extended Eastwood's financial losing streak and left him with less clout at Warner Bros., which Jason said made any chance of a deal evaporate. Rooker, however, said the reason that financial and creative problems the film carried with it.

Regardless, Eastwood certainly was influenced by what he'd seen of Hannaford when developing his own characterization of Huston for “White Hunter Black Heart” — including a scene when an overzealous man introduces himself and Clint's character, John Wilson, replies, "Of course you are.” [A line Welles delivers as Hannaford in “The Other Side of the Wind” during the shooting when Huston wasn’t cast yet] — "Orson Welles’s Last Movie" (pgs 249-250)

SEE ALSO: How Orson Welles pulled off the scariest media hoax of all time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a legendary rock band ended up influencing the 'Game of Thrones' books

Considered one of the greatest artists of all time, Orson Welles is best known for his legendary work as an actor and director on Broadway. His work included scaring the country with his fake “The War of the Worlds” radio broadcast and then going to Hollywood and creating masterpieces like “Citizen Kane,” for which he won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay in 1942.

But his later years brought financial turmoil and were marked by a stubborn obsession with having creative freedom on anything he touched. He ended up living in exile in Europe for more than a decade.

Then in the summer of 1970, Welles returned to Hollywood with dreams of a comeback — but on his own terms.

He prepared to self-finance and direct a film he “wrote” (it’s still uncertain if there ever was a complete script) titled “The Other Side of the Wind.”

The story would take place during a single day in the life of a legendary, self-destructive filmmaker named Jake Hannaford (played by John Huston) who returns to Hollywood after years of a self-imposed exile. Despite the obvious similarity to his own life, Welles always insisted that the film was not autobiographical.

Like all things in Welles' life, the proposed eight-week shoot on a micro-budget did not go as planned. The film would consume the maverick’s life until his death in 1985. And to this day, the unfinished film has been tied up in legal and financial battles that you’d think could only have been possible in a sensational story penned by Welles.

In the new book, “Orson Welles’s Last Movie: The Making of ‘The Other Side of the Wind,’” author Josh Karp looks back on the turbulent making of the film, to help pay for it Welles took on commercial work, and the bizarre happenings related to the film following his death.

In a related note, just this week (which happens to fall on Welles’ 100th birthday) it was announced that a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo had begun to raise the finishing funds needed to get the film closer to being released to audiences. (Welles completed shooting, but never finished editing.)

Here are excerpts from the book, which is currently on sale.

Orson Welles always loved telling a good story. It didn’t matter if it was for the screen or at a dinner party. As Karp writes below, one of those stories, about Welles' fistfight with Ernest Hemingway, led to the inspiration for “The Other Side of the Wind.”

It was May 1937: before “War of the Worlds,” before “Citizen Kane,” and more than thirty years before he shot the first frame of “The Other Side of the Wind.”

Hired to narrate Hemingway’s script for “The Spanish Earth,” a pro-leftist Spanish Civil War documentary made by Jorvis Ivens, Orson entered a Manhattan recording studio and encountered the legendary author.

On the day the two men met, Welles was only twenty-two but had already achieved more than most artists dream of accomplishing in a lifetime. He was a Broadway wunderkind with his own theater company and his own radio show. As a radio performer he was making more than $1,000 a week during the Depression and was the voice of the title character on the wildly popular radio detective show “The Shadow,” meaning he was heard in millions of living rooms each week.

It was a juncture in his life when Welles was so busy that he allegedly hired an ambulance (sirens blaring to avoid traffic) to get him from radio gigs to the theater on time. It wasn’t illegal and he was Orson Welles, so why not?

By the time he met Hemingway, Welles had staged an all-black “Macbeth” set in nineteenth-century Haiti and was working on a fascist-themed, modern-dress “Julius Caesar.” Within a year he’d appear on the cover of Time magazine. Then that Halloween there was the broadcast of “The War of the Worlds,” and if anyone hadn’t heard of Orson Welles by November 1983, they were either living in a cave or dead.

Now famous, he went to Hollywood, where by the age of twenty-six he’d co-written, directed, and starred in his first feature-length film: “Citizen Kane.” It was a time, said one friend, where “anything seemed possible” when you were working with Orson.

Anything was possible. Everything was possible. And the day he met Hemingway, Orson was on the cusp of exploding as an artist and a star.

Hemingway, meanwhile, was thirty-seven and had already written “A Farewell to Arms” and “The Sun Also Rises.” He’d driven an ambulance in World War I, where he’d been injured by mortar fire and witnessed violent death firsthand while still in his early twenties. Hemingway knew life in the most physical sense. He was a man’s man who stalked big game, reeled in gigantic marlins, and chased adventure to such an extreme that years later he survived two plane crashes in the same day while hunting in Africa. It fit perfectly with the image he cultivated — one crash simply wasn’t enough. It had been a life consciously marked by death and violence, things that were in his blood and affirmed his existence.

They didn’t know it, but Welles and Hemingway shared more than artistry and big personalities. Both men had a deep love for Spain and the art of bullfighting, and each was friendly with legendary torero Antonio Ordóñez. But in May 1937, their shared passions were of no consequence. What mattered was what Orson did after entering the studio.

Having reworked Shakespeare, Welles likely didn’t think twice about trying to improve Hemingway’s script. Orson claimed he’d tried only to make it more Hemingwayesque, cutting the words back to their essence and letting images on-screen speak for themselves. Perhaps they could do away with lines such as “Here are the faces of men who are close to death” and just show the faces themselves.

Shocked by Welles’s audacity, Hemingway immediately went after the softest spot he could find and used Orson’s theater background to infer that he was gay and didn’t know a thing about war or other manly pursuits. More than a decade later, Hemingway would tell John Huston that every time Welles said “infantry” it “was like a cocksucker swallowing.”

Not yet fat, young Orson Welles was still a big man, tall and sturdy, with large feet. Despite his size, however, Welles wasn’t prone to violence. But having dealt with bullies since his youth, he knew just how to retaliate. If the hairy-chested author wanted a faggot, Orson would give him one. So, great actor that he was, Welles camped it up and drove Hemingway over the edge.

“Mister Hemingway,” Welles lisped in the swishiest voice he could muster, “how strong you are and how big you are!”

The counterpunch hit Hemingway exactly where Orson intended, and the novelist exploded, allegedly picking up a chair and attacking Welles, who grabbed a chair of his own. The aftermath, as Orson described it, was a cartoonish sound booth brawl played out with bloody images of the Spanish Civil War flickered behind them.

Eventually, however, both men concluded that the fight was insane, collapsed to the floor in laughter, and shared a bottle of whiskey. Thus began a friendship that lasted until Hemingway shot himself in the head on July 2, 1961. — "Orson Welles’s Last Movie" (pgs 7-9)

In the early years of shooting “The Other Side of the Wind” (1970), Welles was able to rent time on the MGM studio backlot at a cheap rate because he had his crew pretend they were UCLA film students. On the dilapidated sets of old Westerns shot there, Welles and his team filmed scenes that didn’t involve Hannaford (Welles hadn’t cast Huston yet; when they needed a shot of Hannaford’s back or a line said off-camera, Welles would play him). Though the crew quickly learned that Welles’ methods were unorthodox and volatile.

Much time at MGM, however, was consumed by Orson searching for inspiration and without a clear vision of how he wanted things to appear on-screen. Many scenes were rehearsed and filmed numerous times, after which Orson would change things around and do it again, and again, until the right image or interpretation emerged. Then he'd move the camera again and reenvision the action from a different perspective.

On another film, the producer might have pushed Orson to be more efficient. But since it was how own money and he had an accommodating crew, Wells had total control over the set, how long they worked, and what they shot. As a result, when the lot was available for only one final weekend, Wells had the crew work seventy-two hours straight until they got all the footage they needed.

Because of the free-form nature of the MGM shoot, Welles often became exasperated over technical glitches or shots taken from the wrong angle. Many times he would lament that they were "losing the light" and explode in a way that terrified some but was part of the job to most.

One outburst took place when Welles sent someone out for dinner during the late afternoon. Upon his return, the crew member handed out wrapped plates of food and plastic silverware. Orson went ballistic, launching into a twenty-minute tantrum about how they'd lost the light.

"I wanted sandwiches!" he screamed as the precious light dissipated behind him. "So that they could eat with one hand!"

Everyone, including those stifling laughter, put on an appropriate face out of respect for Orson and to avoid the line of fire.

[Actor on the film Bob] Random recalled that Welles blew up on another occasion and told everyone to get off the set and never return. Knowing it was just another explosion, they left and then came back as if nothing had happened when [the film’s cinematographer, Gary] Graver called later that week. — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pg 77)

Most of the crew were obsessed with pleasing Welles. That was evident by 1974, when the production moved to Carefree, Arizona, and Welles was in need of a few props for a scene.

Among the other things Orson needed during the shoot were: a real human bone; fake but authentic posters for old Hannaford films that existed only in Orson's imagination; dummies to fill a crowd scene; a cigar store Indian for Jake's den; and hunting trophies, including a swordfish for the mantel.

Anywhere other than the desert, it might have been easy to find a swordfish, but in Arizona they were hard to come by, so Orson sent [crew member Glenn] Jacobson to a Hollywood prop house. After driving from Carefree to Los Angeles and back, Jacobson proudly placed an enormous grouper over the mantel.

Welles took one look and said, "No! I want a swordfish! Like in Hemingway!"

So the grouper sat in a corner and the search continued until [one of the film’s actors Peter] Jason asked a bartender where he could find a big stuffed swordfish and was given the name of a local taxidermist with one on his own mantel.

Jason called the man, explained his predicament, and was lent a beautiful, much treasured swordfish only because it was for Orson Welles. Jason placed it in the back of a station wagon and drove back a Carefree, holding the fish's delicate bill the entire way.

Knowing how happy he'd make Welles, Jason was beaming as he and [crew member and future Hollywood producer Frank] Marshall brought the swordfish inside and placed it carefully on the living room floor during dinner.

"Oh my God!" Welles said. "It's fantastic!"

While Welles continued to express his pleasure, Jason warned everyone that he was responsible for the swordfish and that no one was to touch or move it. But minutes later there was a crunch, and Jason turned to see that [crew member] Larry Jackson had accidentally stepped on the bill and broken it into three pieces.

With everyone shrieking and moaning "like they were at an Indian funeral," Jason tore Jackson to pieces and then spent the next several days finding the proper shade of black, blue, and silver spray paint to glue the bill back together so they could see it over the mantle. It then remained there for weeks and weeks, while the taxidermist called to see when he'd get his swordfish back. — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pgs 141-142)

The bizarre stories on set only increased when John Huston came on the film.

"Don't worry," Welles assured Larry Jackson, who was lying in the trunk of the convertible, holding a boom mike. "We won't even be going that fast."

Welles and Jackson were about to shoot a scene in which Hannaford drives to his party, with [famous director and Welles friend Peter] Bogdanovich (formerly in the backseat as [another character in the film] Higgam in August 1970) no sitting in the passenger seat with a crew member crammed into his footwell. Orson and Graver, meanwhile, strapped a camera to his side of the car and squished into the back with handhelds.

Having already consumed a considerable amount of vodka that day, Huston pulled the car onto a street, where he drove only briefly before running up a curb onto a street, where he drove only briefly before running up a curb onto somebody's front lawn, clipping a tree, and destroying the side-mounted camera, which swung violently toward — and nearly decapitated — Bogdanovich.

When the car stopped, Welles looked at the camera and said, "I'll have to do another commercial to pay for that." Then he turned his attention to Huston, wanting to know what just happened. Though Hannaford was supposed to be driving recklessly, this was more than Orson had in mind.

Huston, however, was neither acting nor drunk. Instead, he explained that long ago he'd concluded that drinking and driving didn't mix and that he'd have to make a choice of one or the other. Drinking won, and for decades he'd hardly been behind the wheel.

Undeterred, Orson yelled, "Action!" and Huston steered back onto the road and drove for a bit before he was told to merge onto a highway. Following the directions, Huston turned the car and entered by going the wrong way down an exit ramp and into high-speed traffic on an expressway, with Jackson clinging to the trunk, thinking, "The obituary won't even mention that I was here."

With everyone screaming and the cameras rolling, Huston swerved away from oncoming cars until he was able to jump the meridian with a hard left and then calmly join the flow of traffic on the other side.

When they exited the highway and Huston pulled over, everyone was deadly silent, until Welles sighed deeply and said, "Thanks, John. That'll do.” — "Orson Welles's Last Movie" (pgs 152-154)

At the time of Welles’ death of a heart attack in the fall of 1985, “The Other Side of the Wind” was still in post production and Welles was in battles with his financiers over its completion. The drama around the film only increased in the following years. But Welles’ longtime mistress and star of “Wind,” Oja Kodar, was determined to hand the film over to another iconic filmmaker for completion. She first tried John Huston in 1986, but petty matters led to that not going forward. Kodar then tried to reach out to some of the filmmakers that made up New Hollywood.

With Huston out, Oja and Graver showed “The Other Side of the Wind” to several prominent directors, including Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, George Lucas, and Clint Eastwood, hoping that one of them would take on the project.

After striking out with Stone, Lucas, and Spielberg, Oja found out that Peter Jason had recently appeared as Eastwood's commanding officer in “Heartbreak Ridge” and called him, insisting that he take the film to Eastwood, who had a reputation for rescuing obscure and offbeat projects from the scrap heap. Jason told Oja that she should write a letter that he'd drop off at Eastwood's Malpaso Productions on the Warner Bros. lot. When he read the handwritten note in Oja's somewhat broken English, however, Jason retyped the letter, fixed the grammar, and took it to Eastwood's office.

Expecting nothing, Jason was back at home when he received a call from a secretary at Malpaso who asked him to wait on the line for Eastwood.

"Pete?" the “Dirty Harry” star said when he came on the line. "It's Clint. What is this?"

"It's Orson Welles's last movie," Jason replied.

"Can I look at it today?" Eastwood asked.

Jason quickly called Graver, and they grabbed reels of two scenes (the rain-car-sex scene and Hannaford's arrival at his party) and drove them to Eastwood's office, where they showed the footage to Clint and his associates Tom Rooker and David Valdes.

At one point Valdes said, "There's nothing here we can use," and left the screening, which Rooker said everyone had come into anticipating a lost treasure, only to see a film that "was all over the place and kind of a mess."

Dejected, Graver and Jason struck their film cans back in the trunk and began driving off the lot when Rooker ran out and told them Eastwood was intrigued by some of what he'd seen. "He couldn't figure out how you did the rain on the window," Rooker said, adding that Eastwood was leaving the next day but would love to see a script or have the film put on tape so he could try to figure it out when he returned from Africa, where he was portraying a fictionalized Huston in “White Hunter Black Heart.”

While Eastwood was gone, Jason and Graver took footage to Eastwood's editor five reels at a time. But when “White Hunter” didn't do well at the box office, it extended Eastwood's financial losing streak and left him with less clout at Warner Bros., which Jason said made any chance of a deal evaporate. Rooker, however, said the reason that financial and creative problems the film carried with it.

Regardless, Eastwood certainly was influenced by what he'd seen of Hannaford when developing his own characterization of Huston for “White Hunter Black Heart” — including a scene when an overzealous man introduces himself and Clint's character, John Wilson, replies, "Of course you are.” [A line Welles delivers as Hannaford in “The Other Side of the Wind” during the shooting when Huston wasn’t cast yet] — "Orson Welles’s Last Movie" (pgs 249-250)

SEE ALSO: How Orson Welles pulled off the scariest media hoax of all time

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a legendary rock band ended up influencing the 'Game of Thrones' books

The HBO documentary "Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop" will make you chuckle, it will make you feel uncomfortable, and then it will make you want to delete your Google search history.

In yet another of many recent attempts to reevaluate a major crime story (as "Serial" and "The Jinx" do with different cases), director Erin Lee Carr takes on the case of Gilberto Valle, better known as the "Cannibal Cop."

The film, which premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and debuts on HBO on Monday, follows Valle, a former NYPD police officer who allegedly cooked up a scheme in an online chat room to kidnap, rape, and eat dozens of women.

Valle was convicted in 2013 for charges on kidnapping conspiracy, but, after he had served one year of jail time, his case was eventually overturned. Some believe he really wanted to do all of this. He says it was a sick fantasy that he never planned to actually carry out.

Viewers can spend all the time they want deciding whether he belongs behind bars. But this is not a film that is searching for a guilty or innocent verdict. Valle's story is used to present a bigger, more pressing problem about internet culture in general.

"Thought Crimes" evokes the terrifying dystopian ideas of "1984,""Fahrenheit 451," and "Minority Report" and suggests we may be living in one of those worlds — where our thoughts can be policed just as easily as our actions. Throughout the film, excerpts from Valle's many chats about cannibalism pop up on screen. Many of these conversations occurred on a cannibal role-playing fantasy site.

Valle's conversations were so vivid and so twisted that it seemed less like the thoughts of a troubled man and more like a legitimate murder plot. The person Valle spent much of his time chatting with made it abundantly clear that everything the two of them were discussing was very real to him. Plus, Valle's use of a police database for information on women he planned on cannibalizing clearly crosses the line.

This all gives a good sense of the worldview the film presents, in which our thoughts can be used against us; we now have the ability to broadcast our worst ideas anywhere, but every chat session feels more private than it actually is. In this future, there is no line between "thought" and "action." Valle is a great antihero for this case study because his case, and his personality, are clouded in ambiguity. By the end, it is impossible to know whether he really wanted to actually pull off any of the crimes he described.

The film itself presents incredibly dark subject matter in a surprisingly humorous way. It might be partially because the alleged Cannibal Cop seems to have a good sense of humor about seeing his life destroyed. After all, the world had a field day with this story, most likely without realizing that his actions ruined his life and tore his family apart.

While there is nothing funny about what put Valle in prison in the first place, the film's best moments come from bits of comedy that materialize through the editing process, masterfully executed by Andrew Coffman. For instance, Valle's explanations about why he isn't a cannibal are interspersed with shots of him cooking meals, including bacon as well as pasta with meat sauce.

Unlike previous true-crime documentaries, "Thought Crimes" leaves you with nobody to fully blame.

Instead the viewer is left to think about how people are now much more willing to post personal, incriminating information about themselves for the whole world to see. Overall, HBO's latest documentary makes a good case that people should be a lot more cautious about what they search for online.

"Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop" premieres on HBO on Monday at 9 p.m. ET.

WATCH THE TRAILER:

SEE ALSO: This brilliant sci-fi film is one of the best movies you'll see all year

SEE ALSO: Why you should be watching Fox’s excellent ‘The Last Man on Earth’

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch this documentary short about a tragic crime featured on the hit podcast 'Serial'

In the time of year when movies with big explosions and little else trumps all, director George Miller’s latest film in the Mad Max franchise, “Mad Max: Fury Road,” epitomizes the summer movie blockbuster.

And we are not complaining.

Decades in the making, “Fury Road” is basically Miller’s 1981 “Mad Max” sequel, “The Road Warrior,” pumped with supercharged 3D visuals to provide a fun two-hour escapism experience.

The plot is extremely thin, but if you need one …

Tom Hardy plays Max — the original Mad Max, Mel Gibson, left the project in the early 2000s due to his legal trouble— the one-time cop who is now a desperado roaming the post-apocalyptic desert wasteland. He’s captured by the “War Boys” of a near-by tribe and after a failed, yet thrilling, attempt to escape, is used as a blood transfusion for one of the “Boys,” Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who is on the mend from battle.

While this goes on, the tribe’s leader, Immorten Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), an aging tyrant who breaths out of a sinister, teeth-designed oxygen tube, has sent off his War Rig driven by Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) to get the latest shipment of gasoline from the far away refinery. But on the drive there, she suddenly goes rouge and attempts to escape the tribe. Joe sees what she’s doing and unleashes the War Boys, including Nux and Max in tow.

The rest of the film is basically a chase for the War Rig, with Max and Nux soon becoming allies with Furiosa.

Very similar to the incredible chase we see in “The Road Warrior,” this one is extended to span most of the movie.

And again, there’s nothing wrong with that. The cars created for "Fury Road" are visual marvels and the stunts pulled off with them can only be described as thrilling moves you only thought possible back when you played with your Tonka trucks as a kid in the backyard.

And instead of gasoline being what the bad guys want this time the precious cargo are the beautiful five wives (Riley Keough and Zoë Kravitz, among them) of Immorten Joe, who are also trying to escape.

If you’re familiar with the three previous "Mad Max" films ("Mad Max,""The Road Warrior,""Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome"), "Fury Road" is incredible fun that is close to two-hours of non-stop action. And this is only elevated by the fact that at the helm of this reboot is Miller, the brainchild of all the movies in the franchise.

But this is also a summer movie for those who don’t get a rush from the countless superhero adaptations thrust upon us this time of year.

Rated R (and a hard R at that, with loads of violence and gore), "Fury Road" is perfect counter-programming. There are no witty one-liners from the stars (in fact, Hardy doesn’t talk much at all), and no mission to save the universe.

Our "hero," Max, is a troubled soul who’s gone through a lot and just trying to survive. Hardy does play him with a bit more sentimentality than Gibson did, but Miller is good at keeping those moments brief.

With the "Mad Max" films Miller always seeps in a bigger meaning. Often it’s the world killing itself (like his commentary on our addiction to gasoline in "The Road Warrior"). In "Fury Road," water is what motivates the characters, as Immorten Joe holds it from his tribe, releasing it sparingly only to keep them in line (perhaps playing on our world's decrease in water supply). But Miller also explores family. Immorten Joe is determined to get his wives back so he can contine to create his pale War Boys, while Max can’t get the memory of his dead child out of his head.

And then, perhaps what trumps all, are the striking visuals from longtime cinematographer John Seale ("The English Patient,""The Talented Mr. Ripley,""Harry Potter and the Scorcerer’s Stone"). If possible, find a huge screen to watch this. The wide shots of the desert, the explosive action sequences and the evening scenes with its cool blue glow, are done with an incredibly talented eye.

This is definitely going to be the most beautful-looking film you'll see this summer.

SEE ALSO: South Africa is quickly becoming a go-to destination for Hollywood movies and TV shows

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This Lego version of the 'Batman v. Superman' trailer is absolute gold

There's a new documentary about Carroll Spinney, the puppeteer who played Big Bird ever since the character debuted on "Sesame Street" in 1969. The film, entitled "I Am Big Bird: The Carroll Spinney Story," chronicles the origin and evolution of the character through vintage footage and interviews. 

It is now playing in select cities and is also available on demand.

Follow BI Video:On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

It wasn't enough for Australian-raised actor Hugh Keays-Byrne to have one legendary character on his resume, he had to go and create another.

Behind the fiberglass body armor, long white hair, and sinister oxygen mask of villain Immortal Joe in “Mad Max: Fury Road” is the man who, 36 years earlier, terrorized the Australian plains as the memorable Toecutter in the original "Mad Max.”

Keays-Byrne, 67, started his career as a trained theater actor who was part of the Royal Shakespeare Company for numerous years. But in 1979 he gained international acclaim in the low-budget apocalyptic cult hit “Mad Max,” starring a then unknown Mel Gibson.

“I was a young actor trying to do films and suddenly I realized, 'God, people are talking about this film,'” Keays-Byrne told Business Insider. “A friend of mine phoned from Japan and said, ‘Hugh, you're on television every 10 minutes over here.’”

Though Keays-Byrne would go on to act in numerous movies and TV shows for decades following “Mad Max,” he would always be known as Toecutter. Even to this day he gets stopped in the grocery store by fans.

Then, eight years ago, Keays-Byrne got a call from “Mad Max” director George Miller about the opportunity to come on “Fury Road.”

“I thought, didn’t Toecutter drive in front of a moving truck and die?”

He did.

Instead, Miller wanted him to play another villain, Immorten Joe, the leader of a post-apocalyptic village in which he rules by limiting the water supply and using beautiful women to birth his followers, coined “War Boys.”

This time things were different. Much of that was because of the hour-long hair and makeup routine he underwent to become unrecognizable every day before shooting.

Keays-Byrne said it took a few days to get comfortable on a big budget Hollywood set.

“This film took me into an area of technology that I’d never been anywhere near before, it was a bit scary," he said. “How does one judge one's performance?” he wondered. Since a mask covered his face throughout the whole production, he was required to do his dialogue in post production months later. “But George kept me relaxed. I had an ear piece and he’d speak to me [during scenes] from time to time, which I found reassuring,” Keays-Byrne said.

It’s hard for Keays-Byrne to pinpoint aspects of Immorten Joe that originated from him, as he spent years talking to Miller and others on the production about the character before they began shooting. However, there is one piece of his character he can unequivocally say came from him.

“Immorten Joe has a war club, and that was my mother-in-law’s," he said. "It was given to her during the second World War. After she died it was laying around and I thought, oh, that's an interesting thing.”

Here’s a picture of Immorten Joe holding the club on set.

In fact, the giant axe Toecutter used in "Mad Max” was also Keays-Byrne’s contribution. “A friend of mine had given it to me and I thought it had a look about it.”

Keays-Byrne loved the experience of doing a movie like “Fury Road" and hopes to do another one on that scale again, but he admits what he’s really excited about is watching the film with the actors who were members of Toecutter’s gang in "Mad Max.”

“Quite a few of those guys are still dear friends of mine,” he said. “We will indeed all go see ‘Fury Road’ together.”

SEE ALSO: "Mad Max: Fury Road" has no plot but it's still incredible

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 70 people were injured while filming this movie with 100 untamed lions

For decades "Star Wars" fans have heard how imporant the Biggs Darklighter character is. Now there’s a short documentary that pays tribute to one the saga’s most popular minor characters.

In “Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope," we're introduced to Biggs, a mustache-rocking ol’ buddy of Luke Skywalker who perished in Luke’s X-wing trench run to destroy the Death Star.

On the surface, Biggs was just one of the Rebel X-wing pilots we grew a liking to during the battle sequence, like Wedge Antilles and Jek Porkins. But in previous versions of George Lucas’ script for "A New Hope," Biggs played a much larger role in the film, as he’s Luke's best friend back on Tatooine.

Now in Jamie Benning’s documentary, “Blast it Biggs! Where are you?!,” Biggs Darklighter is finally in the spotlight.

The 16-and-a-half minute short looks at rare photos and the Biggs' deleted scenes, with voiceover throughout from an interview with the actor who played Biggs, Garrick Hagon.

One Briggs deleted scene was supposed to be in the beginning of “A New Hope” where Biggs tells Luke he’s leaving the Imperial Academy to join the Rebel Alliance. The other is later in the movie when the two reunite before they get in their X-wings to take on the Death Star. The latter scene George Lucas put back into the movie for the film’s 1997 rerelease.

In the short, Hagon admits his disappointment when he first saw the film and realized that most of his scenes were taken out.

“It was admiration and a thrill mixed with disappointment,” Hagon said in the short. “Because I realized what a chunk [of my scenes] had gone.”

But Biggs has lived on in the “Star Wars” universe. The novels and comics that were published following the popularity of the original trilogy get into more detail about Biggs and Luke’s friendship, as well as Biggs’ time at the Academy.

Watch the short below:

SEE ALSO: There's a "Star Wars" Easter egg in a lot of Marvel movies

Join the conversation about this story »

Talks of the twisted metal and high octane vehicles that would populate “Mad Max: Fury Road” began when director George Miller showed production designer Colin Gibson three walls filled with storyboards of the film 15 years ago.

“He said, ‘One day this could all be yours,’” Gibson recalls to Business Insider of what Miller presented him. Gibson just didn’t realize how far away that “one day” would be.

Gibson began building the cars to be featured in the film as far back as 2003, when it was originally going to be shot in South Africa with Mel Gibson returning as Max, a loner in a post-apocalyptic world who navigates through the different gasoline-starved tribes in order to survive.

But the plug was pulled on the film leading up to the Iraq War, and the project lingered in development hell until four years ago.

The final version is an action-adventure film starring Tom Hardy as Max and Charlize Theron as Imperator Furiosa. Responsible for driving the massive “War Rig” to replenish her village’s gasoline needs, Furiosa goes rogue and dashes in the truck to parts unknown in hopes of freedom, picking up Max along the way. The village’s evil ruler, Immortal Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) unleashes his “War Boys” and their gonzo fleet of vehicles to hunt them down.

 Built over 11 months before production began in late 2011, the close to 200 vehicles Gibson created range from a sedan with massive metal spikes sticking out of it to a giant truck covered with stereo speakers.

Below, Gibson breaks down some of the most memorable vehicles.

Interceptor:

The iconic vehicle from the “Mad Max” franchise is Max’s 1973 Ford Falcon XB GT. The super-charged car made its first appearance in "Mad Max" in 1979 when Max was chasing down bad guys with it while he was still a cop. It returned in “The Road Warrior” (1981) where Max used it to escape the clutches of the evil forces who want to take it from him for the gasoline.

Gibson knew the importance of the car, so he didn’t make many changes to its look. “All we had to do with it was make it another 45 years older,” he said. “More rust. More rattle. Less original parts.” But with Hardy now as Max, Gibson also saw the car as a passing of the torch. “When we changed Maxes, it becomes even more important that we have that particular handoff.”

The War Rig:

Like in “The Road Warrior,” much of the action in "Fury Road" is on a massive 18-wheeler. But like all things in the movie, it’s unlike any you’ve ever seen. With two V8 engines, and modified cabins throughout, Gibson created a vehicle that the audience wouldn’t get tired of looking at half-way through the movie.

“War Rig was one built more to a prescription than an imagination,” he explains. “It was such an important part of the story that George and the storyboard artists had come to a greater consensus of what was required.” Gibson points out that there are up to 13 different characters inside the rig at any one time through the movie. Gibson said the classic John Wayne western, “Stagecoach,” was an inspiration for creating a moving location where the drama plays out over a long stretch of time.

The Gigahorse:

For Immorten Joe’s vehicle Gibson thought of a creation that would suit a crazed post-apocalyptic leader. What he came up with, he says, is his favorite of the vehicles. Stacked with two 1959 Cadillac Coupe De Villes on top of massive tires, Gibson’s thinking was “in a world where there was barely one of everything, it seemed the only person liable to have a pair would be the lead villain.”

Plymouth Rock:

To create this porcupine on wheels, Gibson took inspiration from the tribe that would drive them, the Buzzards. “George saw the Buzzards as the lowest common denominator,” he said.

The first group to go after The War Rig after Furiosa tries to escape, Gibson said they are the “scrap merchants” of the tribes and was allowed to use the rustiest of materials for their vehicles. “We used bent and battered steel panels,” he said. “All the spikes and panels were built out of old cars. But the stunt guys expressed some concern about rolling them at high speeds into rocks, so I had to replicate a couple where the steel spikes were stiffened goat skin which buckled and were less dangerous.”

The Doof Wagon:

Perhaps the most challenging vehicle, for all involved in the film, was the bandwagon that follows Immortal Joe’s armada of twisted vehicles into battle. “George said every army has a little drummer boy and ours was Spinal Tap on acid,” said Gibson.

The Doof Wagon is a big rig strapped with massive drums in the rear, endless speakers in front of it, and a stage where the blind and disfigured Coma the Doof Warrior rocks out on his flam-throwing guitar. Gibson said it was the most difficult vehicle to run as its six foot wheels (which they took from old mining tractors) would get buried in the sand. And then there was the noise. “George Miller has very expansive tastes so everything has to be real,” said Gibson. That means the speakers blared music all the time. “Some of the actors could barely hear themselves act,” he said. But Gibson made the error of when creating the flame-throwing guitar that it did not also play. “I foolishly built it as a prototype,” he said. “George was most emphatic that the guitarist had to be able to play, so we went back to the drawing board and made something that could play and shoot flames.”

With a decade-worth of storyboards for the film, Gibson said the main thing he had to do to get an idea of how to make the vehicles was to write some backstory.

“After conversations with George about the different tribes, I put together this bible of looks and from that we drew the inspiration for each vehicle,” Gibson tells Business Insider.

Some of the cars and trucks created came from scrap material Gibson’s team found in junk yards throughout Australia. But mainly what was used came from what Aussie’s call the “paddock.” 

“It’s at the back of your house where you drop off two cars that you intend to work on one day,” Gibson described. “So we were out searching for other people’s passions that hadn’t come to pass.”

SEE ALSO: ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ has no plot but it's still incredible

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

There’s a scene in "Mad Max: Fury Road" where you’re watching Tom Hardy’s titular character rise slowly out of the sand.

You hear every little speck of sand shaking loose from his body from his head downward. Every sound is intensified tenfold until Hardy’s character stands tall and comes to his senses. 

That sort of attention to detail makes "Fury Road" incredible. 

For those unfamiliar with "Mad Max,""Fury Road" is the fourth installment in the George Miller franchise which started in 1979 with Mel Gibson. Without too many spoilers, in the original, Max Rockatansky was a patrol officer in a dystopian Australia, before he lost everything of value to him. His further adventures involve putting others lives ahead of his own.

Max's origin story isn't imperative to the new film, though.

It took Miller over 15 years to bring “Fury Road” to the screen after delays and reshoots, and it was well worth the wait. 

"Fury Road" may just be the best movie you’ll see all summer.  

It’s definitely the best film so far this year.

While much of the two-hour extravaganza starring Hardy and Charlize Theron is a wild non-stop car chase, it’s so much more than that. 

The entirety is a delicious assault on both your visual cortex and auditory system — a giant orchestral blend of machine engines roaring and wheels peeling combined with a booming overture of drums and guitar.

The lighting and visuals are a work of art to behold. As others have noted, you could watch this film in silence and just be blown away by the contrasting browns of the desert sands against the piercing blue skies and eyes of Theron and Hardy.  

There’s a short leg of the film where everyone is cast in a soft blue gradient. It’s like watching the film under a filter, and it’s beautiful. 

Staying true to the character, Hardy’s Max doesn’t say much — often speaking in grunts or with simple gestures — but he doesn’t need to. The smallest movement of his eyes or gestures do the talking. Most of the time, he’s a terrifying badass who eats lizards raw and can take down a pack of men single-handedly without blinking an eye. 

Both he and Theron’s Imperator Furiosa (one of many lavish names in the film) are a ragged tag-team of warriors who you can’t get enough of on screen.

And the guitar man. Oh the guitar man. 

You know who I’m talking about if you’ve seen the trailers — the wild guitarist playing his own personal concert atop a spectacular Macy’s Day Parade-like vehicle. Every time he comes on screen, you can’t help but grin because it’s so utterly over the top that it’s just another welcome addition to the mixed bag of eccentric characters on display.

One thing that may surprise you given the film's testosterone-heavy marketing in trailers is that it’s driven by a female-centric storyline. Going in with little expectations having only watched the first “Mad Max,” I was ready for an all-out bro-movie filled with car chases, brawls, and mindless fun. While you certainly get all of that, you get a bit more, too, and it’s refreshingly welcome. 

The film follows Furiosa (Theron) as she helps five “brides” (including Riley Keough, Zoe Kravitz, and the wonderful Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) escape a breeding circle responsible for birthing future members of the villain’s War Boy group. Max just happens to get tangled up in this whole charade. (A bit of wrong place wrong time.) 

While the movie clocks in at two hours, it feels like it goes on for longer, and it’s one of the rare times you won’t think that’s a bad thing.

Just when you think it may end, it kicks back up and revs into high gear. The entire final stretch of the film is on an entirely different level, which is sort of strange to say because the whole movie is on an entirely different level.  

Imagine a gorgeously wild and hellish “Wacky Races” meets “Twisted Metal” (replace the scary clown face from the popular game with Max’s Immortan Joe). Numerous parties engage in combat — some hanging from wiry poles that would make Cirque du Soleil members jealous.For the final 30 minutes or so, I surrendered myself to the film, dropping my pad and pen with which I usually jot down notes to claw nervously into my cheeks and the back of my neck, awaiting the uncertain fate of our film’s protagonists over a majestic desert car battle. 

That feeling of your heart beating in your chest, having no idea what’s coming next is what you head to the movies for, and the 70-year-old Miller more than delivers.  

As far as any viewer will be concerned, this is a great cinematic triumph.  

If you’re going to see a movie this weekend, or this summer, make it “Mad Max.”

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is in theaters Friday, May 15.

SEE ALSO: How the vehicles in "Mad Max: Fury Road" were created

AND: How this actor ended up playing two different characters in the "Mad Max" franchise 36 years apart

Join the conversation about this story »

"Slow West" is a modern Western clearly made by people that love and respect the genre, though it has more in common with a mismatched buddy comedy than a John Wayne film.

The premise is simple — a young Scottish boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) travels across late 19th-century West in pursuit of the woman he loves. The boy is incredibly naive and knows not of the unspeakable horrors that lie in the desolate countryside. 

Lucky for him, he crosses paths with an outlaw drifter (Michael Fassbender) that offers to help guide and protect him along the way for a small fee. Little does he know the drifter may have a motive of his own.

Fassbender likely says more in voiceover narration than he does to the boy, and the difference in candor between these two mediums reveals there may be more to him than his brutish exterior would indicate. As more characters are introduced, Fassbender's value to the boy becomes clearer, and his charming demeanor becomes more sinister. The chemistry between the two is always lively and fun, and since the audience knows Fassbender is up to something, the tension only continues to rise until all hell breaks loose.

Besides the actual leads, the real star of the show here is the gorgeous, seemingly endless, wide-open spaces of the old West. The photography does a great job of isolating our heroes — as they go deeper and deeper into unchartered territory, they appear even more alone amongst the sweeping New Zealand backdrops, which themselves are a bit more confined by the director's decision to shoot 1.66:1.

Westerns are usually the perfect vehicle for a fuller, wider "scope" aspect ratio of 2.35:1, but the smaller, tighter frames work well here, restricting the view and keeping the audience in the same space as the characters. The string-filled score does a great job of accenting the action and feels like a solid mix of old-school and contemporary influences.  

The most surprising thing about "Slow West" is how genuinely funny it is in spite of the fact that it's steeped in Shakespearean level tragedy. There are a number of hilarious gags weaved throughout, and even when things get incredibly dark, there's a big punchline a second later to ease the pain. It's not a comedy in the traditional sense, but rather a dark, sad and contemplative story made that much more effective through genuinely funny moments. 

By the time "Slow West" reaches its frantic, mayhem-ridden, "Straw Dogs"-esque third act, it's firing on all cylinders, and is a total blast. It's masterfully paced, impeccably shot, occasionally violent, often funny, and always a joy to behold.

"Slow West" opens this weekend in limited theatrical release and on VOD services.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Marvel's new 'Ant-Man' trailer looks even better than 'Guardians of the Galaxy'

It’s going to be the “Pitches” against the “War Boys” at your local multiplex this weekend.

With the much-anticipated release of “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “Pitch Perfect 2,” both opening on Thursday night, the projections for this weekend’s domestic box office take are the most competitive in months.

The rabid fans for Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, and the other "Pitch Perfect" gals are planning to come out in force this weekend. Early domestic projections are predicting a $50 million three-day gross.

Meanwhile, the more than decade-long wait for "Fury Road," which stars Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, has predictions of a take around $40 million for the three days, according to Deadline. 

It will be interesting how close these two very different films (going after different demographics) will be when the final take is tallied. Especially seeing that though box-office projections are leaning towards "Pitch Perfect 2" to be the winner, "Fury Road" has a higher Rotten Tomatoes rating at 99% than "Perfect 2," which is at 75%.

This weekend will be especially fun for box-office watchers, as this face-off is the first competitive weekend between two opening-weekend films since last year.

We have to go all the way back to the beginning of November 2014, when the kid-friendly "Big Hero 6" ($56.2 million) edged out Christopher Nolan’s space-opus "Interstellar" ($47.5 million) on their opening weekends.

Since then the top spot has been mostly flooded with big titles facing little competition and winning the top spot over multiple weeks such as, "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1,""The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,""American Sniper,""Furious 7," and "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

Speaking of "Ultron," though "The Avengers" sequel is likely to slip to third place this weekend after holding the top spot the last two weeks, it is possible that it could still have a strong showing. Projections have the superhero blockbuster making close to $40 million. 

According to Fandango this week, "Pitch Perfect 2" was voted the most-anticipated comedy of the summer in a poll they conducted, and the presales for "Fury Road" are stronger than previously released R-rated action movies like "Lucy" and "Kingsman: The Secret Service."

SEE ALSO: Elizabeth Banks' $200 path to directing "Pitch Perfect 2"

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Disney just dropped another 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' trailer — and it's the best one yet

"We Are Still Here" is a legitimately scary, occasionally funny, and always smart homage to '70s/'80s horror. The dialogue and performances may feel a bit ham-fisted at times, but when things kick into high gear, the wonky exposition takes a backseat to some truly memorable and terrifying stuff.

After the tragic and untimely death of their son, a married couple move far away to a small New England town in an attempt to leave their melancholy behind. Anne (Barbara Crampton, '80s horror staple) immediately feels her son Bobby's presence in the new house, and while her husband, Paul, doesn't buy in to it at first, as evidence of the supernatural piles up, it's not long before he's a believer.

To help free her mind, Anne invites over their New Age, pot-smoking hippie friends Jacob and May (the parents of their late son's roommate) to reminisce and maybe even perform a séance. When May taps into the spirits of the house, it becomes clear that the forces at work here are more sinister than a friendly visit from Bobby.

The melodrama of the opening sequence may be a bit off-putting at first, but once all the wheels are set in motion, the film picks up the pace and dives right into the insanity. Genre legend Larry Fessenden turns in the film's best performance as Jacob, balancing big laughs with genuine terror, and Crampton also shines in a more muted, understated role.

The film succeeds by touting a seemingly predictable story and using it to subvert the audience's expectations. The characters think they know what's happening, but the reality of the situation goes far deeper than that, and first-time director Ted Geoghegan isn't afraid to sprinkle in his own mythology to spice things up.

Rather than follow the boring traditional route, the film veers left when you expect it to go right, constantly keeping you engaged and wondering what new danger will be revealed next. By the third act, things get bloody. Like, really bloody.

There are a few sequences so effective and scary that they remain firmly implanted in my mind even several days later. The CGI baddies are honestly never that intimidating, and the scares all come from well-paced, well-shot, and well-edited moments in which their reveal is scarier than the beings themselves. When one of the spirits gets loose and possesses the body of one of the characters, it's genuinely terrifying. There are a number of other unlikely surprises that I will not spoil here, and the paranormal stuff is only the tip of the dread iceberg.

"We Are Still Here" is one of those modern horror works that simply would not exist without the laundry list of genre films that inspired it. Instead of feeling reductive as a result, it brilliantly mashes up these retro conventions and sensibilities with more modern horror aesthetics to create something wholly satisfying. Horror fans will definitely want to cut out 80 minutes for this one.

"We Are Still Here" debuts in limited theatrical release (Cinema Village in NYC) and on VOD services June 5.

Watch the trailer below.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: You'll never visit your grandparents again after watching the creepy trailer for 'The Visit'

Before he starred in "Mad Max" in 1979, Mel Gibson was unknown to the rest of the world. 

Then, "Mad Max" became a box-office smash. It grossed $100 million worldwide and held the Guiness world record for most profitable movie of all time for nearly two decades.

After that, Gibson was on his way to international stardom. He reprised his role as the titular Max Rockatansky two more times in sequels "The Road Warrior" (1981) and "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985). 

So for some fans of the series, it may have been a little bit of a surprise that he won't be making an appearance in the latest sequel "Mad Max: Fury Road."

The film itself took nearly 17 years to get made. Besides geographical and weather-related problems delaying production, director George Miller saw many reasons that made it difficult to get Gibson in his latest film.

"We were going to do it with Mel and we were within reach of doing it with Mel. Then 9/11 happened and the American dollar fell against the Australian dollar." Miller told The Huffington Post.

After the film was revisted years later, Miller started looking at others to play the lead as Gibson became older and his life was rocked by a series of scandals.

"By the time we got there, not only had Mel hit all the turbulence in his life, but this is not a ‘Mad Max’ in which he’s an old warrior,” Miller told the New York Post.

In 2006, he was arrested for drunk driving and heavily critcized for an anti-Semitic rant. In 2010, a profanity-laced voicemail further tarnished his reputation.

Miller also wanted to go for somebody younger, as this film, which is set in the future, isn't supposed to take place long after the original films. 

“He’s meant to be that same contemporary warrior. I guess in the same way that James Bond had been played by various people, it was time to hand over the mantle.” Miller said.

Gibson's part is now being played by Tom Hardy.

However, there seem to be no hard feelings, as Gibson was present at the premiere with both Hardy and Miller.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" opens nationwide on Friday, May 15.

SEE ALSO: ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is easily the best movie of the year so far

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The latest 'Mad Max: Fury Road' trailer is a wild ride into madness

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is in theaters Friday, May 15.

Starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, the film is the fourth addition to the "Mad Max" franchise from director George Miller. The movie is phenomenal, the best of the year so far.

If you're not familiar with the movies — the first came out in 1979 — then the cult hype around the return of the series may be lost on you.

Before the film's release, here's a quick primer to catch you up to speed on Max.

Who exactly is this Max and why is he "Mad"?

In a dystopian crime-ridden world, Max Rockatansky was part of a police force holding criminals at bay.

All of that changed at the end of the first film.

*Warning* Some spoilers ahead *Warning*

He resigned from his job after his partner Goose was left for dead by a mad motorcycle gang. After his wife and infant child were killed in the movie's climax, Rockatansky essentially went mad.

There's no other word for it.

He hunted down the rest of the gang, plucking them off one by one until they were all dead. He even handcuffed the final guy to a wrecked car that was about to blow. Instead of killing him outright, he left him with a hacksaw to attempt to cut through either the cuffs or his ankle before leaving him for dead.

Max is a man living on the edge. He has nothing to live for, yet he somehow always ends up getting mixed up in an adventure where he's called upon to save a group of defenseless people. Don't mistake him for a hero — he's no Superman, but he's not a villain either. You could probably categorize Max under a group of antiheroes or reluctant savior. 

How many films are there?

"Fury Road" will be the fourth film in the franchise. 

The other three are the original "Mad Max" (1979), "Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior" (1982), and "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985).

Do I need to see them before checking out "Fury Road"?

Not necessarily. 

Though Miller told The Hollywood Reporter that all of the films are "connected in spirit," "Fury Road" stands on its own. Since the film's pretty light on plot (and dialogue), focusing more heavily on the visuals and action, you'll be just fine. 

The introduction of Tom Hardy taking over as Max is sort of a passing of the torch. 

Think of "Fury Road" as a completely new James Bond installment with a new actor stepping in to play the role. He has a new agenda and different missions to carry out. Likewise, this is an entirely new adventure in the world of "Max."

So, why's the newest one coming out now — years later? Seems like an awful long time to wait for another sequel.

Miller has been trying to bring "Fury Road" to screen for 15 years, but it has been delayed several times and has even swapped studios. 

"When 9/11 happened, the American dollar collapsed against the Australian dollar, the budget ballooned, and it fell apart,"Miller explained to THR. "So we had to move on to Happy Feet because the digital unit doing that was ready, and Warners said, 'Let’s go.'"

When the film was at Warner Bros., it was originally set to film in Australia, like the previous installments, however, an unusually heavy rain storm set the film back 18 months. Finally, production moved to Africa.

And why isn't Mel Gibson reprising his role as the lead?

Miller originally wanted him to return, and he was just about onboard when there were original talks for the film in 2000 and 2001; however, as delays for the film went on, two concerns came up.

"By the time we were ready for Fury Road again, Mel had all those troubles,"Miller told the Huffington Post. "It also definitely got to the stage where it wasn't like Unforgiven, where it plays with an older guy. It was definitely the younger guy, the same guy."

SEE ALSO: ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is easily the best movie of the year so far

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The latest 'Mad Max: Fury Road' trailer is a wild ride into madness

If you've ever watched one of your favorite animated Disney classics like "Robin Hood" and have felt like you've seen it before, you may be right.

A lot of the scenes in the film are from older Disney movies including 1967's "The Jungle Book" and 1937's "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves."

Here's Maid Marian ("Robin Hood") and Snow White both clapping in tune to a group of critters and dwarves, respectively, singing and dancing.

Little John from "Robin Hood" and Baloo ("The Jungle Book") not only shared a voice actor, Phil Harris, but also looked similar, with the same crazed eyes in the scenes below.

While that may seem alarming, it's not. The Mouse House often recycled its old animated footage to save costs on film. 

Called rotoscoping, the process involves animators drawing and tracing over old footage to create anew.

Earlier this week, an HD video we first spotted on /film broke down a lot of similarities between a number of classic Disney films.

While the HD video is new, if you're a Disney fan, this isn't anything new.

A search for "Disney reused animation" on YouTube brings up over 10,000 results. The Daily Mail first wrote about it in 2009.

Regardless, it's still stunning to see the side-by-sides if you're just hearing this for the first time.

Dancing was repeated a lot in films. Here you can see a similar sequence in both the endings to 1959's "Sleeping Beauty," where fairies are shifting the color of her dress between blue and pink, and 1991's "Beauty and the Beast."

A scene of Maid Marian dancing in "Robin Hood" was previously seen in 1970's "Aristocats."

That famous drum-banging scene in marketing for "The Aristocats" was also used in "Robin Hood."

Another video, entitled "The Disney Deja Vu" shows a lot of other animation that was reused across films.

Among them is a scene from 1961's "101 Dalmatians" that can also be seen in 1963's "The Sword in the Stone."

Those are just a few examples from tens of Disney films that borrow and reuse animation.

To be clear, it's not just Disney who has done this. Plenty of other films have recycled content over the years.

You can watch the video below:

SEE ALSO: 2 reasons Disney movies often don't have moms

AND: "Toy Story 4" will not be a sequel to the third film

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

It was inevitable, but it finally happened!

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" has crossed $1 billion at the worldwide box office in 24 days.

It wasn't fast enough; however, to beat "Furious 7" to the milestone.

The Universal Studios' film crossed $1 billion in a record 17 days to become the fastest movie to hit the landmark ever.

"Age of Ultron" owes much of its success to its international rollout, which is responsible for over $600 million of its gross.

Earlier this week, the sequel debuted to a record $34 million opening in China.

The film is performing weaker than its predecessor domestically.

In 13 days, "Age of Ultron" has made more than $329 million state side. At the same point in 2012, "Avengers"had already made over $395 million.

Overall, 2012's "Avengers" made $623.4 million domestically.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's Why Stan Lee Says You Should Never Do Something Just For Money

Before you head out to theaters this weekend to see the highly anticipated "Mad Max: Fury Road," check out the trailer for the 1979 cult classic that started the franchise.

The original "Mad Max" starred a young Mel Gibson in a role he would revisit on two separate occasions. "Fury Road" director George Miller also directed the original, as well as its two subsequent sequels. It's obvious that Miller was working with a much smaller budget back then, but without this cult classic we wouldn't be able to enjoy what some are calling the best movie of the year so far.

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

In the time of year when movies with big explosions and little else trumps all, director George Miller’s latest film in the Mad Max franchise, “Mad Max: Fury Road,” epitomizes the summer movie blockbuster.

And we are not complaining.

Decades in the making, “Fury Road” is basically Miller’s 1981 “Mad Max” sequel, “The Road Warrior,” pumped with supercharged 3D visuals to provide a fun two-hour escapism experience.

The plot is extremely thin, but if you need one …

Tom Hardy plays Max — the original Mad Max, Mel Gibson, left the project in the early 2000s due to his legal trouble— the one-time cop who is now a desperado roaming the post-apocalyptic desert wasteland. He’s captured by the “War Boys” of a near-by tribe and after a failed, yet thrilling, attempt to escape, is used as a blood transfusion for one of the “Boys,” Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who is on the mend from battle.

While this goes on, the tribe’s leader, Immorten Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), an aging tyrant who breaths out of a sinister, teeth-designed oxygen tube, has sent off his War Rig driven by Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) to get the latest shipment of gasoline from the far away refinery. But on the drive there, she suddenly goes rouge and attempts to escape the tribe. Joe sees what she’s doing and unleashes the War Boys, including Nux and Max in tow.

The rest of the film is basically a chase for the War Rig, with Max and Nux soon becoming allies with Furiosa.

Very similar to the incredible chase we see in “The Road Warrior,” this one is extended to span most of the movie.

And again, there’s nothing wrong with that. The cars created for "Fury Road" are visual marvels and the stunts pulled off with them can only be described as thrilling moves you only thought possible back when you played with your Tonka trucks as a kid in the backyard.

And instead of gasoline being what the bad guys want this time the precious cargo are the beautiful five wives (Riley Keough and Zoë Kravitz, among them) of Immorten Joe, who are also trying to escape.

If you’re familiar with the three previous "Mad Max" films ("Mad Max,""The Road Warrior,""Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome"), "Fury Road" is incredible fun that is close to two-hours of non-stop action. And this is only elevated by the fact that at the helm of this reboot is Miller, the brainchild of all the movies in the franchise.

But this is also a summer movie for those who don’t get a rush from the countless superhero adaptations thrust upon us this time of year.

Rated R (and a hard R at that, with loads of violence and gore), "Fury Road" is perfect counter-programming. There are no witty one-liners from the stars (in fact, Hardy doesn’t talk much at all), and no mission to save the universe.

Our "hero," Max, is a troubled soul who’s gone through a lot and just trying to survive. Hardy does play him with a bit more sentimentality than Gibson did, but Miller is good at keeping those moments brief.

With the "Mad Max" films Miller always seeps in a bigger meaning. Often it’s the world killing itself (like his commentary on our addiction to gasoline in "The Road Warrior"). In "Fury Road," water is what motivates the characters, as Immorten Joe holds it from his tribe, releasing it sparingly only to keep them in line (perhaps playing on our world's decrease in water supply). But Miller also explores family. Immorten Joe is determined to get his wives back so he can contine to create his pale War Boys, while Max can’t get the memory of his dead child out of his head.

And then, perhaps what trumps all, are the striking visuals from longtime cinematographer John Seale ("The English Patient,""The Talented Mr. Ripley,""Harry Potter and the Scorcerer’s Stone"). If possible, find a huge screen to watch this. The wide shots of the desert, the explosive action sequences and the evening scenes with its cool blue glow, are done with an incredibly talented eye.

This is definitely going to be the most beautful-looking film you'll see this summer.

SEE ALSO: South Africa is quickly becoming a go-to destination for Hollywood movies and TV shows

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This Lego version of the 'Batman v. Superman' trailer is absolute gold