Speed Racer is a great, big beautiful contraption of a movie - that has a maddening habit of breaking down repeatedly. It has the body of a Ferrari, but the engine of a Pinto.
Some people will love this movie; others will hate it. I loved it and hated it. I loved it for its dazzling design and effects, and I hated it for wasting all that innovation on a threadbare story.
I knew Speed Racer would be a movie of extremes, but the extremes cut both ways. What works in the movie is very good, but what fails in the movie is often very bad. The Wachowski brothers, the creators of the Matrix trilogy, have written and directed a Frankenstein monster of a film that’s only half alive.
Unsurprisingly, the Wachowskis have made a technical marvel. The art direction looks like a Roman candle factory gone haywire, but in a good way. If nothing else, this just might be the most colorful movie ever made. Rather than being blinding, the movie is eye-filling. There’s something wild to see on almost every inch of the screen.
Even more impressive is the editing style, which seamlessly segues from shot to shot, creating brilliant collages of imagery. This is as much a revolution for digital editing as JFK was for cutting on film. Early on, when young Speed imagines himself in a race, and every object in the scene except him is a pencil drawing, I smiled and said “wow” out loud. I thought I was in for a great ride.
Then the story had to intrude, and the caution flags went flying.
I just got my ticket to see the midnight screening of Speed Racer, and to be honest, I don’t know whether to be excited or not.
Obviously, I’m getting a high-octane thrill ride that skews young, to a family audience, and yet the reviews I’ve read are sending out very mixed signals.
Quite a few critics hate it. A key quote comes from Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who writes, “I reckon the M.P.A.A. should use the advent of Speed Racer to revive an old ratings symbol: a big Roman X, meaning “of no conceivable interest to anyone over the age of ten.”
Christy Lemire of the Associated Press smacks it with a one-star rating, saying: “At two hours and 15 minutes, it’s way too long for little kids, the only ones for whom this explosion at a crayon factory would seem even vaguely entertaining. Adults seeking the nostalgia of their own childhood will just be disappointed, because Speed Racer the movie bears little resemblance to Speed Racer the TV cartoon.”
I’m helping out a colleague of mine today with their own summer movie story.
Breaking up is never easy, especially when someone ends it with a Post-It
note.
That’s exactly what happened to the leading lady of Sex and the City,
Carrie Bradshaw, when she woke one morning to find a little Post-It note
with a big message: “I’m sorry. I can’t. Don’t hate me.”
In celebration of the release of the Sex and the City - The Movie, which hits the silver screen May 30, we are looking for your bad break-up stories. If you’ve had a sticky end
like Carrie’s, let us know.
Tell us how you got dumped by contacting reporter Meagan Engle at mengle@coxohio.com or (513) 705-2551. Names will be changed to protect the innocent — and the guilty.
If you can block out the din of daily life around here, that wailing you can hear in the distance is the sci-fi geek crowd crying foul over the new Terminator movie.
Specifically, they’re upset that Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins (kind of a mouthful, innit it?) due out May of next year, will be rated PG-13.
This is similar to the hue and cry that was raised when Live Free or Die Hard came out with a PG-13 last year, but I thought that “controversy” was overblown. I liked the movie, but I didn’t sit there thinking, “Man, this would be SO much better if there were more blood and McClane said “f—-” a lot.” Instead, I was thinking, “Man, this would be SO much better if the villain were stronger and if the action weren’t so derivative.”
With the Terminator franchise, I think the complaints are more valid because the new movie is set during the big future war between man and machine, and rating a war movie PG-13 seems, well - stupid.
UPDATE: Commenter “Ronster” made an excellent point when he said: “To me, the diff on R and PG13 is whether the filmmaker intends the movie for an adult or non-adult audience, primarily, and in marketing, surprise/shock value, themes and approach. Ratings are about age-appropriateness, not about filmic quality… or at least, that’s what they USED to be about… “
One of the ratings boards’ failings, in my view, is that they tend to be lax on violence. If last year’s Beowulf had been a live action movie it would have been rated R without a doubt, and yet, because the violence was “digitized,” that makes it less impactful. Um … sure.
When it comes to Terminator that makes me wonder. The first Terminator would still clearly be an R now. But I have to wonder whether Terminator 2 would be rated R by today’s board since it doesn’t have a lot of graphic violence and there’s no sex. Yesterday’s R may be today’s PG-13.
OK, let’s see what we’ve got today on the new release wall. Hmmm.
First Sunday: January release with Ice Cube. Says “Comedy.” Kinda doubt it. Next.
I’m Not There: Well, this one I can kinda sorta recommend. It’s certainly bold and unique in its execution, by telling the story of Bob Dylan using actors of different ages, races and even genders. Unlike some critics, I don’t believe an innovative idea equals a great movie all by itself. There’s this little thing called execution that matters too, and that’s pretty uneven. Cinephiles should check it out just for Cate Blanchett’s amazing work, and Bob Dylan aficionados will get into it, but Scorsese’s No Direction Home was good enough for me. I’d give it a B-.
Over Her Dead Body: And her dead movie. Proof positive that Eva Longoria may be a babe, but she ain’t a movie star. What the heck is Paul Rudd doing in this? Did he smoke too many joints doing research for Forgetting Sarah Marshall?
Geez, this selection really stinks. You’d think this were the summer movie season or something.
PS I Love You: I never know what to make of movies that have Beatles songs in their titles but they aren’t Beatle movies. Do I give the movies credit for having good taste or do I sneer at them for associating Beatle tunes with mediocrity? I’d like to think this Hilary Swank vehicle is worthwhile, because it’s written and directed by Richard LaGravanese, who I really like. He made Freedom Writers with Swank, which was a solid little gem, but everything I’ve read about this movie screams “drippy melodrama.” Nah.
Oh, wait, I overlooked this one back here in the H’s …
The Hottie and the Nottie. Paris Hilton.
You know what folks? I’m sorry to have bothered you. Just go back and comment on one of my Iron Man posts or something. I really gotta go.
(Runs out the door searching frantically for the nearest bottle filled with a certain pink liquid)
Wow. The ink is barely dry on Iron Man’s boffo box office reports, when Marvel announces, not unexpectedly, that Iron Man 2 is a go, set for April 30, 2010.
What IS a bit surprising is that Marvel has announced a full slate of future movies. They are Thor, due out June 4, 2010; The First Avenger: Captain America May 6, 2011; The Avengers, July 2011; and Ant-Man, which has no release date.
Marvel is understandably heady with its success, considering Iron Man, the first feature the company produced independently, opened bigger than most people expected. But I wonder if they’re moving too fast.
The Thor and Captain America titles make sense; those characters are pretty well known. But the Avengers, which are kind of a Marvel all-stars, seems like a risky venture to me this soon - just look at all the trouble WB has had getting a Justice League movie with the DC heroes off the ground. And who but ardent comic nuts cares about Ant-Man?
Marvel had better be careful - I have a sneaking suspicion that a good chunk of the goodwill they have right now will evaporate once The Incredible Hulk comes out in June. Then where will that put them?
And good news for fans of the movie - that sequel you (and I) are waiting for may hit as soon as 2010.
To get the blog going this week, however, a I’d like to pose a question. A few comments on my Iron Man review were about taking kids to the movie. It seems to be have gone over especially well with the young ones.
So I wonder: What was your most memorable moviegoing experience with a child? It doesn’t have to be the first movie, necessarily, and it doesn’t have to be memorable for happy reasons. Many of you, I’m sure, have known the trauma of taking a child to one of the tragic Disney movies (Bambi, Lion King) as lampooned in this brilliant Animaniacs short.
If you don’t have kids yourself, your answer can be about taking other kids to the movies, or hearing funny kid responses. Comment and share.
Latest comment
You can usually tell how bad a movie is by how hard they promote it. And this one ranks near the top