Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Speed Racer (2008)

This is topic Speed Racer (2008) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001415

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-09-2008, 03:56 AM:

This review is a bit random because I wrote it during the movie to help alleviate some of the pain.

Ok so maybe I should focus on the positives here. This movie is VERY pretty to look at. I can’t imagine anyone not agreeing with me on this. However unfortunately the filmmakers clearly blew their wad on making this look pretty and ran out of money when it came time to pay someone to write even a mildly interesting story.

The ENTIRE first reel is jibberish, but of course very pretty jibberish. Nobody will care what is going on and nobody will care about the characters because it is almost impossible to follow what is going on.

Come towards the end of reel 2 Speed Racer (the adult character) finally starts to have some dialogue. We also have a scene with a housecar containing piranhas hungry for asian meat. Let’s just leave it at that.

When did John Goodman get his 8th chin? Why is it everything in this movie is so advanced, yet the family has a piece of shit tv? Why does one of the bad guy’s teeth keep changing colors? Why is this movie over 2 hours long? By the way did I mention how pretty this movie is? What a waste.

Fuck this is boring! Oh shit, I am only on reel 3 and this is a 7 reel movie. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! [Frown]

Oh wait...reel 4 actually has some racing. Of course it is essentially battlebots driving really fast, but still its SOMETHING. (Did battlebots ever throw bees at each other?) Fans of American Idol take note...Jason Castro is one of the drivers. [Razz]

And the race scene is over and we are back to more bad dialogue complete with some superb examples of overacting. Yawn. Why does this movie have to be so long and so boring? Was the original Speed Racer cartoon boring like this?

Where did the ninja come from? Correct that, a NON-ja. [Roll Eyes]

I don’t even know what else to write. This chunky diarrhea drones on and on and I don’t see how it will make any money once the word gets out.

I think I will go put some graffiti on the restroom wall. “For a good blow job sneak into the Speed Racer auditorium, because it SUCKS!!!” Thank you Wachowshitski Brothers. You could've tortured us less with a Matrix 4 (well wait a minute, that may have ended up being a draw...nevermind.)

1 out of 5 stars only because it looked so damn pretty.

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 05-09-2008, 07:31 AM:

Now that's a REVIEW!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-09-2008, 09:50 AM:

I saw 15 or 20 seconds of the first or second reel last night. That was enough.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 05-09-2008, 11:14 AM:

Hmm, you people must be watching a different movie than me, 'cause I thought it was pretty good!

Oh, wait... that was Iron Man, my bad! I almost forgot about the suffering that I endured as I sat watching seizure inducing CGI, giant talking heads floating across scrolling backgrounds, and the many, many other cinematic atrocities that Speed Racer commits before giving up on it.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-09-2008, 11:58 AM:

This is not a bad movie. It's got plenty of problems, but after sitting through MADE OF HONOR and WHAT HAPPENS IN VEGAS, at least it's something different. The look of the film is very pretty. But more than that, it's interesting. The Wachowski's are definitely pushing the envelope here, trying to find new ways to tell stories. It's crazy, it's abstract, and it doesn't always work. But sometimes it works really well. The opening sequence of the movie was a fantastic setup. People are calling it confusing, and I guess I see why. But it's also an extremely cool way for them to get their point across visually, and I applaud that.

This movie has two problems. One is the overly simplistic plot, which is way too standard for a movie like this. The second is Spritle and the fracking monkey. Someone needs to take that kid out.

But on the whole, I would definitely recommend it, especially if you want to see something new.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-09-2008, 12:59 PM:

This movie has a running time of about two hours and 10 minutes.

The problem with this movie is that it is about two hours too long. As a 10 minute experimental cartoon short, it would have been just fine.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-09-2008, 01:35 PM:

I seem to recall that the original Spritle induced similar reactions. Even back then he should have become a speed bump for the Mach 5.

You guys are daring me to go see this aren't you? Why do I get the feeling that my inner anime child of the '60s is about to die?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-09-2008, 07:35 PM:

If you feel the inner child passing on, just know this: Episodes of Astro Boy are available for viewing on Hulu.com .

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 05-10-2008, 02:38 AM:

quote:
I think I will go put some graffiti on the restroom wall. “For a good blow job sneak into the Speed Racer auditorium, because it SUCKS!!!”

Thank you Brad for giving the best quote about a bad movie I have ever heard! [thumbsup]

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 05-11-2008, 11:43 AM:

Well Brad, that is the best review I have ever seen on a turd of a movie.

kids - 2 hour movie, big Sodie Pop = wet pants, ushers complain about cleaning up.

All in all, a terrible waste of film, although its visually stimulating with the colors.

Louis

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-11-2008, 04:34 PM:

Early matinee today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #4, 35mm.

It's impossible to write anything about this movie without acknowledging how it looks and it looks really really good. Eye-popping color saturation like is rarely seen these days. Very nice print quality and a reminder of how good movies on film can look. Should look fantastic on DVD and esp. Blu-ray as long as they don't muck up the transfer. [beer]

Oh by the way look for those home video releases very very soon. [Wink]

OK. Now about the movie. It's clearly too long, by about 30 minutes. I'm not an editor and I can't tell you what should have been cut, but dammit someone with some nads should have made some ruthless cuts to this to get the running time down to no more than about 1:45, tops. It drags in places to the point where the energy is just gone. Not good.

Having said that, and acknowledging it has some serious problems with pacing and also dialog, I didn't hate it. In fact I kinda liked it. It entertained me. I'm not saying I would recommend it to most people though. It probably takes a special kind of movie geek nutcase and/or anime fan to say anything favorable about it at all (aside from how it looks). I'm only one of those by the way.

I give it 2.5 stars out of 5 but readily concede it has major flaws that will cause many viewers to not be so generous.

I see at imdb.com it has a 6.1 out of 10 average rating from ~1400 votes so far. Boxofficemojo.com has it with an average grade of B-minus from ~260 voters. Those are actually higher than I would have predicted, but still not very good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-11-2008, 06:24 PM:

quote: Allison Parsons
Thank you Brad for giving the best quote about a bad movie I have ever heard!

That is a pretty good comment. Still, my favorite movie review comment from Brad was in his review of The Bourne Supremacy (regarding all the shaky cam shit in it):

quote: Brad Miller
I am going to have to find this director and clamp his head in a paint shaking machine for two hours so he can see the kind of shit he is making.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-11-2008, 11:26 PM:

I liked it.

I know that's a completely indefensible position to take, so I won't bother. But I was entertained.

Amazing in IMAX.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2008, 07:13 AM:

Mike, did Phil put you up to that review?

(BTW, has anyone heard from Phil lately? It's been awhile.)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-12-2008, 09:46 AM:

These reviews are having the effect of making me want to see ONE reel of the movie. I guess I can just look at the trailer.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 12:16 PM:

If you're gonna watch one reel, watch the first one. It's awesome. The other six? Not so much.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2008, 03:24 PM:

If I HAD to watch a reel of this again, I thought the last reel was the least painful. The first one will just make everyone on this planet except Mike angry.

Mike, I think you need to go back and watch this movie again. Make sure you are sober at the time too. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 05:57 PM:

OK, Brad. Well let me ask you this. Which reel has the CLONE WARS trailer attached to it?

<SWISH>

[Razz]

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-12-2008, 06:32 PM:

I just came out of watching this an hour ago and I think Brad's review pretty much sums up how I felt about it. Pretty to look out and a fairly solid sound mix but a dreadfull final film because of the nonsense that was called a plot. I just couldn't follow what was going on right from reel 1 all the way till the end. I have so many questions, I going to have to go and spend an hour on IMDB trying to find out what happened. What was the bad guy up to? What was that chinese racer guy all about? What the hell was going on in general?

And this is probably a dumb question but was Christina Ricci, his girlfriend or his sister?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2008, 06:59 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
OK, Brad. Well let me ask you this. Which reel has the CLONE WARS trailer attached to it?

Who gives a shit.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 07:29 PM:

Cool people. [Cool]

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-12-2008, 09:25 PM:

*High Five to Mike*

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 10:00 PM:

quote: Michael Brown
And this is probably a dumb question but was Christina Ricci, his girlfriend or his sister?

Why can't she be both? [beer]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-12-2008, 10:25 PM:

quote:
quote: Mike Schindler OK, Brad. Well let me ask you this. Which reel has the CLONE WARS trailer attached to it?

Who gives a shit.

Exactly.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-12-2008, 11:30 PM:

Mike, maybe I should make this a bit clearer in the forum description, but you ARE aware that when you are reviewing a movie, you aren't supposed to give a higher score to the feature just because there is some lame trailer attached to the print that makes your pants tight, right?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-12-2008, 11:58 PM:

It was a joke.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-13-2008, 12:12 AM:

But you'd have to give something like What Happens In Vegas or Made Of Honor a higher score for the trailer of Indy...goodness knows there's nothing in those movies to bother reviewing. [thumbsup]

Posted by Frank Bruno (Member # 1871) on 05-13-2008, 01:05 AM:

I'm actually in an extreme minority here, even among defenders, but I loved the damn thing. Bummed out it's bombing so badly, actually. I'd call it ahead of it's time, but I doubt it's time ever comes.

Even some of you haters are acknowledging the gorgeous color. I'd call the action scenes and costuming equally inspired. I'm not a huge fan of the original series, I think it's neat but have never seen much of it. But (I felt at least) a fine balance was struck by the film not taking itself too seriously but also not playing the whole thing as camp (how do you have people say things like "Inspector Detector" with a straight face?)

It doesn't surprise me the film doesn't seem to be finding an audience. It's just too out there from what older audiences are used to, while it's probably way too long and busy of a movie to actually play to children.

Much is being made of this long running time, but things are actually happening the whole time. It at least all stays interesting to look at. I don't think, as many do, that it is a stupid or poorly plotted film. A bit overcomplicated in the never fully explained corporate intrigues. Can anyone think of a "kid's" movie so reliant on flashbacks? The movie also DOES actually seem to have a moral concept; I'll cede it's not quite clear, but seems to be something about the evils of capital vs the purity of family and innocence. While not fully realized it is an improvement over the totally incomprehensible philosophies of Matrix 2 & 3 and creepiness of their V for Vendetta script. (Fight fascism with... fascism?)

As crazy as the race action was, I found it easier to follow than
the ending battle of TransFormers, which was shaky-cammed & jump-cut to incomprehensibility. I think I'd prefer attempted innovation to calculated, Bruckheimerized Michael Bay action.

I think I might be liking this more defensively since everyone else in creation hates it, but at least it's different. From summer Hollywood blockbuster-y stuff, that can be a blessing

Anybody working with it in IMAX? How is it playing?

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-13-2008, 03:46 AM:

Over the weekend, the IMAX version did amazingly well at our location. Monday's audiences were astonishingly small, comparitively. We've got it 'til Kung Fu Panda. As schools start letting out for summer, our weekday numbers might improve.

I didn't think the film was terrible. I haven't watched it straight through, or more than 10 minutes at a time here or there, ... so, given that, it seems a decent, well-made film.

The only trailer the IMAX version has is friggin' Kung Fu Panda. No matter how "stylized" you make a CG cartoon, the characters always look like we've seen them in 100 movies already. That movie doesn't look like it offers anything for me ... and I didn't even see the last 50 CG cartoon movies!

What's this Clone Wars thing people are talking about?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-13-2008, 11:02 AM:

Brian,

It's referring to the Star Wars animated feature being released in August. There's a trailer for it on all the 35mm prints (and I assume on the digital ones too).

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-13-2008, 08:46 PM:

Forgive my lack of a winky smiley. [Wink]

In other news, Speed Racer business picked up a little today.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-18-2008, 03:58 PM:

CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: Cricket IMAX
PRESENTATION: IMAX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Four stars (out of four)

WARNING: "This isn't a race. It's a Spoiler!"

IN THE BATHROOOM: It's not your average hand blower...it's a Dyson Airblade. The guy who invented the vacuum that doesn't lose suction (and a whole bunch of other stuff you haven't heard of) is now marketing a thing you enter your hands into and pull out slowly as it blasts them with air.

It's completely awesome.

THE PLOT: A race car driver is invited to join a corporate team. Wackiness ensues.

Holy crap, the Wachowski brothers hit a home run. They absolutely nailed this.

It's colorful, the storytelling method is innovative (I did NOT find it hard to follow along at all...if they hadn't used it, the movie would have been four hours long), and while it may be too long for kids, everything in it should have been there. (And the kids who came out of this screening were all freaking out raving about it.)

Christina Ricci had better been allowed to keep her entire wardrobe. ESPECIALLY that red dress.

And it looked awesome in IMAX.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-18-2008, 04:18 PM:

Now I know why Sam is evil. He is trying to trick people into seeing this movie so they will suffer.

Sam, you evil man you.

Posted by Tom Mundell (Member # 4555) on 05-18-2008, 04:34 PM:

Just saw it this afternoon, I loved it! I'd say 9/10. I agree with Sam's review, they pretty much nailed it. Didn't see it in Imax, but even in one of the smaller rooms at Tyson's Corner it looked and sounded great.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-18-2008, 05:04 PM:

I liked it.

The first reel was painful as the young man who plays Speed can't act (AT ALL). But once you get past that - it's a great flick.

Oh yeah, two of my three kids fell asleep about a half an hour before the end. So that extra half an hour (Hey-yeah cut out that first reel!) really is too much.

All in all - you find yourself cheering "Go Speed Racer" at the end of the film. So, yeah, it was good.

3 1/2 out of 5 stars (of Hope) [Wink]

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-22-2008, 01:31 AM:

Wachowski brothers should never be allowed to play with cameras ever again.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 05-22-2008, 01:32 AM:

Wachowski brothers should never be allowed to play with cameras ever again. 0 out of 5

Edit: Oops, don't know how the double post happened.

Posted by Louis Belloisy (Member # 3836) on 05-25-2008, 11:57 AM:

Our film broker called a few days ago and asked us to hurry up and take "speed racer" apart, they were making a hurry up pick up. when i asked why, he answered, "the film is so bad, they are sending the prints to japan". they like this kind of movie over there. i wonder how they change the language

louis

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 05-25-2008, 10:45 PM:

I has heard bad things about this movie, so I can't say I was disappointed. How can you be disappointed in something from which you expect nothing? The racing scenes were pretty, and the movie was tolerable up until the part where John Good man helicopters the ninja in the hotel room. I thought Al Gore did a good job playing the bad guy.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-27-2008, 12:14 PM:

Seen at AMC Easton AMC Imax (Theater 14) on Sunday, May 25 at 10:40 am. (Yes, we still go to the cheap shows!!)

quote:
"Let's Hear It For The Monkey" -- Gitarzan (Ray Stevens)

Actually, I thought the monkey was one of the BETTER parts of this movie!

This is one big mess. Hey, Brothers, want to make this movie a WHOLE lot better. Cut out that entire next-to-last race sequence...you know, the one where the good guys help win the race for the Asian guy. Just throw that away..junk it. Have Speed Racer get his Golden Ticket from a Wonka Bar and GET ON WITH IT!!

I have to agree with Evil Sam on one Point...it sure looked pretty on the mighty 50' Imax "Junior". Colors were bright and popped off the screen. Unfortunately, any time there was a fast horizontal move, the image couldn't keep up smoothly and there was a severe "jagged" effect...almost a double image.

What happened to the "Special Camera" the Brothers were using? In some interviews, actors in the film talked about a special camera the had guards around it to keep it secret. This camera kept everything front to back in the frame in perfect focus, much like a comic book. In a promotional trailer shown on TIVO, this effect is very obvious in some of the scenes. The effect was VERY VERY creepy. I didn't see any of this effect in the final version. Maybe they kept it just for the Japanese "Live Action Anime" version.

This movie is a giant, live-action comic book. I almost expected to see BOP, BANG, POW, like the old BATMAN show. Some of the dialog was just too silly. The film couldn't make up its mind whether it was for kids or adults. The children in the theatrer got VERY agitated in that slow section between the last two races.

Actors were almost not necessary here...they had to read their lines and stay out of the way of the effects.

Wife and I both gave this a C-. Not the worst we've ever seen, and certainly not the best. We were prepared for a "not so good" movie, and this picture perfectly delivered that!

This Imax MPX projector does not seem to have as steady an image as the GT model. When credits were shown on the GT unit they used to have at the local Marcus, the letters were absolutly rock solid, looking more like a slide than a moving image. On the MPX, there is a very distinct horizontal jitter.

My compliments to the AMC Easton Imax crew. I've been very critical of them before, especially about dirt level, and dirt sticking to the field flattener. This presentation was almost completely dirt-free. And they sure put out a bright, colorful image.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-30-2008, 01:38 AM:

I just read Dave Halverson's review in GEEK MONTHLY. He gave the film a score of 99/100, saying, "What Blade Runner is to sci-fi (way ahead of its time), Speed Racer is to the family, action, and racing genres."

While I don't have nearly as much enthusiam for the movie as Halverson does, his review brings up some interesting points. I'd recommend checking it out. It's in the new issue with Wall-E on the cover.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-21-2008, 07:20 PM:

Ooh, all the pretty colours! The colour saturation is so intense it's almost enough to make one's eyes bleed! There's no doubt about it, Speed Racer looks like a cartoon come to life, indeed everything about this film is as garish as its colour palette, from it's neon-bright CGI to Susan Sarandon's faux mega rack which is almost but not quite as convincing as that sported by Ms. Lara Croft.

The film runs solely on primitive emotions consisting of all the tawdry clichés such as love, hate, greed, jealousy etc and the histrionics are never allowed to mix - a strict quota of one emotion per character at any one time applies. Subtlety is not in this films vocabulary but this is a kids movie so it can be excused for keeping it's themes simple and its characters firmly black or white (or rather a gaudy red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo or violet as is more likely the case here.)

But as a kiddies movie it also frequently strays from the mark. Writer/directors, Andy and Larry Wachowski, spend far too much time mapping out the detail of a corporate subplot involving white collar crime and company takeovers, a narrative which is completely incongruous with its target audience. The film also periodically yawns with gratuitous sentimentality which will drive its young viewers towards more interesting endeavours such as searching for that lost lolly under their seat.

Speed Racer, however, comes alive with its high octane race sequences which will no doubt segue seamlessly with inevitable video game tie-ins. As spectacular as its CGI is, though, it's also very unrealistic. The cars look like bars of soap sliding around a bath tub. There's no sensation of friction; the vehicles don't even look like they're attempting to be real cars with tyres pulling traction on real roads. Although it's somewhat fitting that a cheap cartoon would spawn correspondingly cheap CGI, the albeit exhilarating race sequences consequently miss the opportunity to be truly awesome.

It's ultimately a vacuous experience, the dialogue is predominantly daft and its running time is about one race too long, but for all that there's still enough entertainment value in its spectacularly staged race sequences to maintain sufficient interest and to deem it unworthy of the "megaflop" mantle it has been burdened with.

6.5 out of 10

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-05-2008, 09:50 PM:

A turd in the cinematic punchbowl.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-12-2008, 02:20 PM:

Okay, here's the deal. If you never were a fan (or have never seen) the original series, this movie will seem out of kilter. It's because the characters, their personalities and mannerisms, were held true to the originals... which I could appreciate. I could hear the old show in their banter.

What I didn't like was the crowded settings -- particularly during the race scenes. The backgrounds were just too busy and intricate, and competed with the action for attention. With so much abstraction, the characters don't "read" properly and become lost in the background. It's distracting, frustrating, and annoying.