I’ve been reading the reviews, seen much scathing commentary, scratching my head over the hostility engendered by “Speed Racer.” I’ve been wondering whether others saw the same film that my family dID: 00 The kids’ film that people slam as being too long for kids, yet five-year-old Caroline was captivated, and I thought was thoroughly engaging.
And I realized a lot of this negativism was sounding familiar to me. Too long. Too loud. Too overwhelming visually with lots of mindless sound and fury signifying nothing. And I realized where and when I had heard it all before:
“Blade Runner.”
Critics and fans leveled many of the same complaints at “Blade Runner,” comparing it unfavorably to other then-popular SF films, and it was crushed at the box office by a powerhouse called “E.T.” “Blade Runner” tanked.
Yet over time it was seen as visionary, and its stylings let an indelible impression on fans and future filmmakers. Any number of dramatic endeavors have the visual stamp of “Blade Runner” upon them.
I think that’s what’s happened here. I think “Speed Racer,” consistent for its title character, is ahead of the pack, and no one has realized it yet. I suspect you’re going to see tricks from “Speed Racer” showing up in other films in the next years, and it’s going to be one of those movies in which, years from now, film students are going to be seeing the basis for many subsequent films. While now people dismiss Emile Hirsch as being bland, others are going to realize he wisely underplays the titular character to serve as a quiet center against the overplaying of his costars and the go-go visuals that surround him. The constant motion of the wipes and the way that even heavily expository scenes are made visually stimulating are going to be aped in subsequent movies.
“Speed Racer” may crash, but like a first rate car, it’s going to be cannibalized for its parts.
PAD
• 
I haven’t seen the film…but I really liked a friend’s description after seeing it at the Imax theater… She said she walked out feeling like she was going to vomit a rainbow. 🙂
I just saw the movie last night and I LOVED it. I cannot say I was a fan of the old “Mach Go, Go, Go” series, but it did bring a lot memories back. And there was a good, solid, family message there.
Yeah, it was ‘cartoony’. It was BASED on a cartoon!!!
Duh.
I just saw the movie last night and I LOVED it. I cannot say I was a fan of the old “Mach Go, Go, Go” series, but it did bring a lot memories back. And there was a good, solid, family message there.
Yeah, it was ‘cartoony’. It was BASED on a cartoon!!!
Duh.
“I still give Matrix cred for using the technique better than anyone else did and having it actually make sense”
Nah, there’s really no way that effect makes sense. It always seemed like a silly gimmick to me.
Oh, and I believe Buffalo ’66 used it before The Matrix did.
Well, the whole thing was taking place in a virtual reality world so it made sense to me that things like gravity and time and stuff would operate under rules not found in our own reality. Or Maybe I just like seeing Trinity kick ášš.
The “bullet time” effect did make sense in the context of “The Matrix.” The Matrix was a computer program, and those who understood that could manipulate the program to an extent. Neo, by virtue of being “The One,” could do it better than anyone else.
This reminds me of when people complain that the Ewoks in “Jedi” were “unrealistic.” If one can suspend one’s disbelief in order to accept talking robots, Jawas, Wookies, Yoda, light sabers, Death Stars, the Force, etc., I don’t see how Ewoks should be any more difficult to accept.
There were a lot of parts of Speed Racer that were very annoying (specifically with that annoying little kid), I do respect what the Wachowski brothers did as far as cinematography went. While the movie wasn’t always successful, I applaud the effort.
Bladerunner on the other hand, I never understood what all the fuss was about.
You know what? I’m amazed that PAD hasn’t taken us all top task over not pointing out an early example of a “bullet time” type of FX since he enjoyed this film himself and later wrote two of its sequels.
Trancers.
The Wachowskis are clearly trying to recreate the original series in a way that goes way beyond simply re-imagining the characters and situations. They’re trying to present for us the “look & feel” of the old series and its narrative and visual tricks and ticks.
How do you judge the success of that effort without knowing and understanding what the filmmakers are trying to recreate?
Anybody can sit in the theater and decide whether they like it or not. But a critic who is going to judge the movie as a “Work of Art” in some academic or critical context is unqualified to do so unless he or she has, first and foremost, an understanding of what the film is attempting.
It’s such a huge element of “Speed Racer” that that understanding is crucial.
But, Leviathan…it is actually a failing of the movie, not the critic/reviewer. Outside of sequel/prequels, your ability to watch/understand a film should never be dependent on knowledge of the source material. I should not have to know who Iron Man is to follow the movie. I should NOT have to know anything about Speed Racer to be able to make a critical assessment of whether the film itself is any good. If you have to have knowledge of the Speed Racer cartoon to simply enjoy Speed Racer the movie? It’s automatically a fail. Prior knowledge can enhance one’s enjoyment…but the minute it becomes required? Then the movie doesn’t work.
Ewoks = Giant Hamsters. Very tasty. Yum!
Bill-as to Ewoks…it was not an issue of “realistic” to me, so much as “kind of annoying.” 🙂
The first use of “bullet time” I remember coming across was in the opening titles of the original Speed Racer cartoon. Right at the end of the sequence, Speed leaps from the Mach 5 and freezes as the animation does a pan around the character.
“What a cool effect,” I remember thinking at the time…
“The “bullet time” effect did make sense in the context of “The Matrix.” The Matrix was a computer program, and those who understood that could manipulate the program to an extent. Neo, by virtue of being “The One,” could do it better than anyone else.”
I never really thought of the effect as literally taking place the way we see it. But if it does, I’m not sure what tactical advantage jumping up and momentarily freezing in mid-air could possibly have. And does Trinity really have that much control over the Matrix? She’s not the One, after all.
@Thom: “Bill-as to Ewoks…it was not an issue of “realistic” to me, so much as “kind of annoying.” :)”
Fair enough — although it’s worth remembering that Lucas was aiming the film at children as well as adults. I was 15 or 16 when “Jedi” came out, so the Ewoks didn’t do much for me, either. Little kids, I suspect, were more fond of them.
**********SPOILER WARNING***********************
@Robert Fuller: “I never really thought of the effect as literally taking place the way we see it.”
Good point. I was thinking in more general terms — i.e. it made sense that someone could manipulate the V.R. if they were aware of it. Some of the specific stuff was probably there because it looked cool. Since it didn’t detract from the story, I’ve no problem with that.
@Robert Fuller: “And does Trinity really have that much control over the Matrix?”
As I understood it, Trinity and Morpheus were really good at it, but Neo was better. Remember, Neo did things even they couldn’t do, like his “Superman” bit.
I have to say, I have a higher opinion of parts two and three of the Matrix than most people here. Part two, admittedly, was padded with “filler,” like the Merovingian and his pseudo-philosophical babble. Also, the end was handled horribly — the dramatic reveal in the last shot goes by so quickly you don’t know who the hëll you’re looking at unless you’re watching on DVD and use freeze-frame (which I did).
I enjoyed part 3, though. Neo became a Christ-like character, and in the end, it was an act of sacrifice rather than an act of ášš-kicking that ended the cycle of war between the machines and the humans. It’s not a new theme, but was handled enjoyable (at least for me) nevertheless.
I have to agree with Bill Myers (and hope that disturbing fact doesn’t make him reconsider). I thought Matrix 2 was slightly disappointing and 3 quite extraordinary. It may be that some of those unhappy with the last two thirds of the trilogy were upset that everything that seemed like an answer or a solution in part 1 was rejected in 2 and 3. In part 1, I had the feeling that this COULD happen, and in 2-3 that I couldn’t be sure it WASN’T happening all around us.
PAD said, “A reviewer need not have seen the original series. A reviewer is the guy who goes, sees the film, says, “I saw it, here’s what it’s about, Here’s why I think it is/isn’t worth your money.”…. A critic, on the other hand, should have a more expansive knowledge of the subject matter….”
Then I guess that when I was writing my movie reviews back in 1994 and 1995, I had one foot in both camps, because I would summarize a movie and provide my arguments for why I thought it was or wasn’t worth seeing; but in most cases, I’d also bring up obvious or probable influences, either because I already knew them or because I did some library research.
In one instance, I compared and contrasted similar “bad guy” characters in two films then in theaters. I wrote something like “the character of ‘Smith’ seemed unrealistic. ‘John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt’ did a more believable job with his similar character of ‘Jones’ in last month’s Attack of the Bad Guys.
I haven’t seen the Speed Racer movie, and am only vaguely familiar with the TV series. I may have occasionally stumbled upon an episode, but that would have been a long time ago, and I know next to nothing about the characters or the back story.
So, if I were reviewing Speed Racer, I’d discuss the film on its own merits, then I’d research the TV series, and include relevant information about it in my review.
A hypothetical example: “While retaining most of the light-hearted fun of the original series, the movie also adds a bit of 1960s-era Marvel Comics angst, but more importantly gives the viewer more of a reason to care about the characters. Those who saw the TV series will appreciate the connection; but those who didn’t won’t feel left out.”
Then I’d give my grade.
Rick
I liked part 3 of The Matrix just fine but I thought part two really did nothing much for the story. All setup, little payoff and lots of padding. Morpheus, who was the coolest character in the first movie not named Trinity, seemed a whole lot less interesting, just lost in the crowd. Few of the Zion characters were interesting. The action didn’t seem to have a purpose. It works better when viewing part 3 immediately afterward but that wasn’t something we could do when it came out. Part 2 left a bad taste in the mouths of critics that spilled over to the superior part 3 and has dogged the brothers ever since.
(Maybe even more than the critic-hate for the Wachowskis is the fact that joel Silver produced it and a lot of Hollywood folk LOVE it when he fails.)
I guess my husband and I just don’t get what all the fuss is about with this movie. Now we loved Ironman, but we love Starship Troopers too.
Occasionally, I swear I never get what all the publicity is about with certain movies. I know that some movies are technically impressive (Matrix comes to mind as some have said earlier) and that we’ll see ripples for some time. I feel like movies like Blade Runner had a message, a purpose. I don’t feel that Speed Racer has the same intention. And I know that summer blockbusters aren’t really supposed to have meaning.
On a side note, I’ve just started watching Babylon 5 again after being introduced to it a few years ago. When it came out (PAD, no offense intended, I’ve reevaluated my view…) that I felt like it was a ripoff of my wonderful sweet Star Trek: TNG and I didn’t want to dignify it with my attention. It took a very persistent ex-boyfriend to get me to sit down and watch with him (he almost had to hold me down the first night). After that, I was enthralled, the stories were different, grittier than Star Trek and more real in some ways. Now I adore them both for different reasons. Maybe in time, I’ll see Speed Racer the same way.
Tim Lynch: Animalympics? You mean the movie starring Billy Crystal, Gilda Radner, and Harry Shearer? That featured work from the creator of Tron, the writer of the Lion King and the future god of animation, Brad Bird?
That one? Never heard of it.:) ..or spent the past month making a fan DVD of it:)
Scav,
Tell me more about this fan DVD of which you speak!
TWL
Reports are that after it’s second weekend, “Speed Racer” is definitely a box-office bomb. Which is a shame. have not yey seen the movie, but I feel PAD is likely correct, that though the film did not get the audience it was hoping for – whether the cause be marketing failure, Wachowski-haters, etc. – that if the visuals are as incredible as they seemed in trailer – and which the critics I have seen even admit, sometimes as a reason for DISLIKING the film – then it likely will see influence down the road of a proportion far superior to it’s box-office take.
Also, why do some, if they don’t like something, wish for it to not exist? Why, Craig, would you “cringe” at the announcement of the film and hope that the poor showing will prevent them from doing a sequel? If you’re not going to see it anyway, why would you care if the studio and the Wachowskis made another movie for the people that enjoyed it and themselves? It’s the same type of mindset hat has people posting stuff like “For the love of God, why are they giving Spider-Girl another shot?” or “How many chances are they going to give “Manhunter”. Just because certain people don’t read them, they obviously have SOME readers who appreciate them, so why moan about them being another choice on the shelves?
Okay. End of rant. I just don’t understand the negativity.
In was interesting to hear PAD bring “Space Odyssey” into the mix. While I quite liked “Speed Racer” after the film I made the comment to some friends that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the ad campaign and word-of-mouth take the same route at “2001” did when first at the box office.
If you’re to believe the stories around it that movie gained a huge following as a psychedelic film and I could see “Speed” going the same way. I think even the ad campaing for “2001” hopped on the bandwagon to (re)market the film in that fashion.
Hi.
Very late to the thread, but just saw the movie today.
It’s not as bad as the critic say it is. It’s not great, but it is fun at times. I was grinning during the mountaintop fight and the final race. I don’t regret having paid to see it.
That said, I doubt it’s going to have the kind of influence PAD thinks it will. Judging by the people I know, something like Children of Men will have an influence, or There Will Be Blood. The films of the Coen Brothes, definitely. Sin City, too, if you want to talk about green screen movies. Speed Racer seems like a flash in the pan in comparison.
Just basing this on the several people I know, or whose work I’ve seen, who hope to be working filmmakers someday. I could, of course, be wrong.
And I’d add that I actually don’t like Sin City, but did have fun at Speed Racer, so, I don’t mean to be jerky or contrarian. (Though I have to ask, that shot where the camera kept panning past the two guys talking – PAD, you found that to be amazing and visually urgent? No offense, just… huh.)
Way late to the party. Just a few comments . . .
Thoroughly enjoyed the film and only wish I had seen it opening night with a crowd. It really deserved a better reception than it got. I wonder how it will go over in Japan.
I do not believe that familiarity with the source material is required to enjoy the film, but realization that you’re actually watching a cartoon with flesh and blood actors is.
That said, as someone who watched and enjoyed the cartoon in my younger days, it was virtually perfect as a SPEED RACER adaptation. The wonderfully over-the-top start of the rally race (the queen of the desert nation fires the starter flare pistol from the roof of her palace upon first sight of the sun over the horizon) made me laugh out loud and grin like a doof because that was so dead-on crazy accurate to the tone of the cartoon.
And Pops Racer’s comment “It’s terrible what passes for a ninja nowadays” should belong in every geek’s quote file.