This movie is bad. It's "Last Action Hero" bad, it's Ang Lee's "Hulk" bad, it's "Flinstones" bad, it's "Phantom Menace" bad. I started to get that sinking feeling as the opening act failed to find it's groove, jumping all over the place without giving the audience a chance to ground themselves. Supposedly this is a movie made for youngsters. If this was true, they would know enough to keep the running time to about 90 minutes. I can guarantee you that if the studio required the Wachowski Bros to shorten the run time, this movie would have been much better. They also should have known that you can't keep up this flashy visual style for over two hours, for it becomes repetitious and loses it's effect on the audience. The worst thing you can ever do for a summer popcorn movie is have long long monologues. My God, it's not a contest to see how many words you can use to describe the racing business. What were they thinking as we are inundated with countless close-ups spewing subplot after subplot. After about an hour of this claptrap, I just gave up trying to keep track of who was in trouble, who was friendly, it just went on and on.
The flashy editing didn't help with the racing sequences, because you are only given 1 second to figure out what's going on in a shot before it changes again. A few race sequences weren't fleshed out enough to get a sense of the endurance. We rarely see the actual start, and the flashy editing prevents you from keeping track of who is where, or whether they are winning.
I gave this movie a shot by seeing it on Imax, but it just made the nose hairs bigger.
Added 05/27/08: I am truly puzzled by the stark contrast in the reviews on IMDb. Many reviews were 10 stars and fawning over how perfect it is. I really can't see by any stretch of the imagination how this could be given a perfect score. Judging not only by the critical reviews but also the nearly empty theatres nationwide, it is NOT any kind of masterpiece. I am hesitant to guess, but perhaps these early reviews were planted? I was fooled in the past by early glowing reviews on IMDb (Swordfish comes to mind), and certainly am wary these days. Especially when the film is given 10 stars and described as if it is the most important achievement in movie-making. Speed Racer? I don't think so.
The flashy editing didn't help with the racing sequences, because you are only given 1 second to figure out what's going on in a shot before it changes again. A few race sequences weren't fleshed out enough to get a sense of the endurance. We rarely see the actual start, and the flashy editing prevents you from keeping track of who is where, or whether they are winning.
I gave this movie a shot by seeing it on Imax, but it just made the nose hairs bigger.
Added 05/27/08: I am truly puzzled by the stark contrast in the reviews on IMDb. Many reviews were 10 stars and fawning over how perfect it is. I really can't see by any stretch of the imagination how this could be given a perfect score. Judging not only by the critical reviews but also the nearly empty theatres nationwide, it is NOT any kind of masterpiece. I am hesitant to guess, but perhaps these early reviews were planted? I was fooled in the past by early glowing reviews on IMDb (Swordfish comes to mind), and certainly am wary these days. Especially when the film is given 10 stars and described as if it is the most important achievement in movie-making. Speed Racer? I don't think so.