Professional critic reviews
This review from, 'The New Yorker' expressed its pleasure in the raw, stripped back approach that George Miller has implemented in Fury Road. Anthony lane the critic enjoyed the fact that everything was reduced to pure action and emotion, whilst he did think that the story was basic he seemed to also find joy in this contrast in comparison with the previous films in the serious which were very subtle and intricate. Generally a positive feedback from Antony Lane he did find that this was perhaps the best film squeal that has happened as very few sequels are actually good.It seems that whilst he didn't enjoy the lack of dialogue that Tom Hardy has the action takes over and the lack of conversation becomes obsolete.
This review from, 'The New Yorker' expressed its pleasure in the raw, stripped back approach that George Miller has implemented in Fury Road. Anthony lane the critic enjoyed the fact that everything was reduced to pure action and emotion, whilst he did think that the story was basic he seemed to also find joy in this contrast in comparison with the previous films in the serious which were very subtle and intricate. Generally a positive feedback from Antony Lane he did find that this was perhaps the best film squeal that has happened as very few sequels are actually good.It seems that whilst he didn't enjoy the lack of dialogue that Tom Hardy has the action takes over and the lack of conversation becomes obsolete. 
Much like 'The New Yorker' 'The Telegraphs' review by Robbie Collin was very similar, he too enjoyed the rage and the eruption of craziness that is Fury Road. Robbie Collin also expressed his enjoyment for the camera work and the fact that Miller has been able to hit such a wide audience, by both young adults and teenagers enjoying it as well as younger children being able to be excited by the action. This review also expresses the lack of conversation between the main characters, which is something that most critics and the audience picked up on. However he could see past this criticism much like Anthony Lane did because the action packed chases & fight scenes were just too good.
Movie nations review, was in very high praise for the film, The notable talked about things, were for the stunts, and how they were all real, as well the lack of cgi and the fact that most of it was all built and shot in real time. The highlights of this review came from the fact that the film was able to keep everyone so engaged for 2:00 hours, even though the storyline was very basic. The intensity of the action and the pace of the film made for a lot of praise from Movie Nation. Cinevue was the final critic review by Ben Nicholson, who was in awe of the film , for its intense action and fight scenes. Whilst he did have some praise for Tom Hardy as Max, the notable praise was for Charlize Theron Furiosa. Nicholson stressed her heroism and her performance which was undoubtably the best out of all the actors in the film according to Nicholson. He liked the fact that this film felt so fresh, and George Millers creative idea to scrap narrative after so long and fill the film with pure action made it something special. Thus Ben Nicholsoon and Cinevue highly rating this film, much like all of the other critics.
Audience review
This first audience review stressed the lack of narrative, they did acknowledge the amazing make-up and cinematography. But simply they wasnt able to connect with Max the main character and because of that they lost interest in all of the action and found themselves disengaged. The lack of narrative was something that the critics also found but they was able to see past that and see the creative aspects of the action. This audience review couldn't see that.
This review was in complete contrast to the last. This person loved the film , and thought that performances from Chalize Theron and other supporting actors were amazing. He thought that whilst the narrative was light that didnt matter because it was 2 hours of pure action and entertainment. Thus this person loved the film for its action, set design, make-up, cinematography and basically everything else.
Whilst this person did enjoy the action packed film, they didnt think that it was a perfect film. They picked up on the dialogue light, and narrative light aspects of the film, and argued that these things lowered the quality of the film. overall they did thoroughly enjoy the film but felt that somethings needed improving so that they could really engage with the characters. 
This audience review had large amounts of praise for the film. They thought that each actor really portrayed their character well and collectively came together to produce an amazing film. This person all seemed to really enjoy the fact there was little cgi and most of it was stunt work and real time shooting. This person felt that the action genre had been declining but George Millers creativity really brought to life what an action film should be like.
This audience review like some others seem to stress the lack of narrative, whilst again they liked the stunt work and the cinematography of the film. The person couldn't emotionally attach themselves to the characters and couldn't engage enough with the narrative, leaving them self to just sit through 2 hours of action and not really enjoy what George Miller had created. Of course this person was able to appreciate the hard work in production of this film but couldn't understand why 2 hours of action was so great.
Overall there was a range of views, some positive and some negative. The overall consensus is that the action amazed people, for the critics they were able to engage with the creativity that George Miller could bring to 2 hours of action and enjoy a fresh outlook on the genre. Whilst for the audience yes some liked the excitement and the intensity of the film, but for some people they couldn't attach themselves to the characters and couldn't engage with a narrative which made them question the greatness of the film.
I think that generally everyone could appreciate the hard work and the stunts, make-up etc that was put in to the film. The critics could see the amazing cinematography which could be compared to other films such as, '300'. But ultimately from an audience perspective not everyone could relate and feel an emotional connection with the characters which caused some controversy over the amazement of the film. Whilst i feel that the controversy is valid, for me the best thing about the film is its simplicity, I haven't got to focus and pick up the little intricate details that some plots have like, 'Inception', instead i can escape in to a fake world and enjoy some blood and gore.
