comment #1

lazespud says ...

I guess I have to see the whole film, because I don't get what all the negativity is about. That seemed super-fun and a good kids action film. The utter lack of irony is clearly on display; maybe that's why there's so much hate for it?

comment #2

actionman says ...

Wow, I barely made it through these seven minutes. I don't even know if I will rent it on DVD from Netflix after watching that. It was aggressively annoying.

comment #3

Mr. Muckle says ...

Wow, somebody's going to love this, but I'm not sure I want to know 'em. An interesting seven minutes, I'd still say.

Looks like an explosion at the pinata factory on Cinco de Mayo. But god knows amurrica can use some color.

Still, auto racing is the greatest waste of fossil fuels since, oh, Jeff Wells' hot tub.

comment #4

Midwest Doug says ...

Whip panny, super zoomy, candy-colored freakiness.

I liked it up until he got out of school.

comment #5

York "Budd" Durden says ...

I'll take a pasadena on this one.

comment #6

Mr B says ...

good to see Jason Street getting some work. but you'd have to tie me down and sedate me to make me watch this.

comment #7

Gus Petch says ...

If they're trying to get people to pay money for this, couldn't they at least pick a part of the movie that doesn't involve Susan Sarandon?

comment #8

actionman says ...

Yes, I will say it was nice to see Jason Street on the big screen.

comment #9

BurmaShave says ...

I took acid a few times. I didn't like it.

comment #10

clancy says ...

This is horrible. My God. The film will be a critical and box office calamity - an absolute mess. The word of mouth will cream it by Saturday night and it may even come in thied place after the Kutcher-Diaz film.

comment #11

lesterg says ...

Barely made it through the three minute clip the other day...no way in hell I can watch seven continuous minutes of that.

comment #12

berkguru says ...

It's an awful real-life version of Wii Mario Cart but you dont get to control the driver so it is no fun. Looks nauseating.

comment #13

Gus Petch says ...

Looking at rottentomatoes, you can already find some fine quotes to put in the commercials next week:

"Imagine someone pouring hot, melted Starburst candies into your corneas, and you just begin to approximate the experience of Speed Racer, an ice-cream headache of a movie." -Alonso Duralde, MSNBC

" 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.'" -Anthony Lane, New Yorker

" The race for worst movie of 2008 starts here. Go Speed Racer GO!" -Jeff Otto, ReelzChannel.com

comment #14

DavidF says ...

I like the shout out to Walk Hard:
"Mr. Racer likes to relive all his childhood memories before going out on a race..."

This thing might be fun but I don't see any evidence the Wachowski's have "moved forward" at all since 1999. If they had anything else in the tank, I've yet to see it...

comment #15

DavidF says ...

p.s. Having just watched that. It's worth remembering that Matrix came out at the same time as Phantom Menace and everyone pointed to it as evidence of how Lucas was being overtaken.

I thought of that as I watched this clip which, IMHO, paled in every way with the pod race. Jake Lloyd was no Brando but he was at least as good as Junior Speed and in Star Wars they used fans and stuff so it seemed he might actually be in a pod, racing in a desert. These guys look almost bored.

Bash Star Wars all you want, say that it's all part of Speed Racer's aesthetic if you want: this thing looks faker and more green screeny than Sky Captain.

People have compared its look to Spy Kids but Rodrigues did those as fun cheepy, films. This ain't that. Maybe it's better in IMAX??

comment #16

jse33 says ...

7 + 128 = 135 minutes of hell

comment #17

Terry McCarty says ...

Re Gus Petch's listing of negative reviews:
Here's a link to the conniption fit Rex Reed had over SPEED RACER--
http://www.observer.com/2008/cough-ptooey-frantic-speed-racer-spews-toxic-fumes

comment #18

BurmaShave says ...

Occasionally, Rex Reed still really has it, his silly dismissal of IRON MAN and the original MATRIX notwithstanding. I found myself laughing out loud at his review.

comment #19

admiralmpj says ...

What...the hell...was that??

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

The beginning reminds me a lot of "My Neighbors the Yamadas" and "Akira". I have a feeling the Wachowskis have seen one too many anime shows, and are trying to present it in that style. The reason the Matrix worked for most audiences was the brothers "borrowed" anime plots and motifs, and discarded the genre's narrative approach. [Sort of like Tarantino's Asian remakes, except he just used white people to recycle key scenes, while the Wachowskis recreated scenes from scratch.]

This is definitely a love-it-or-hate-it pic, but I can't call it the Wachowskis' "Howard the Duck" just yet. It looks breezier and closer to the source material, for one thing.
And it doesn't look like a overpriced dud like "The Flintstones" and "Inspector Gadget".

David: "I thought of that as I watched this clip which, IMHO, paled in every way with the pod race. Jake Lloyd was no Brando but he was at least as good as Junior Speed"

No, Jake Lloyd was still dull, and the pod race was still anti-climactic. At least the drivers in Speed Racer are human(or at least humanoid), and I can see their cars in action. I don't feel threatened or impressed by giant flies on motorbikes, I'm afraid.

comment #21

Craptastic says ...

Got four minutes into it before I shut it off.

It looks like a kid's movie for the 8 and under crowd.

Where are "kid's movies" like Gremlins or The Goonies these days? I hate that the studios treat kids like they're retarded.

comment #22

Richardson says ...

Beyond the obligatory "Shut the fuck up, DZ"...

all the negative reviews had me thinking, "maybe this will actually be interesting." They were SO negative.

Then I watched this. THIS is the clip they chose? I think studios take the "Watch the first ten minutes" thing too literally; it only worked with 'Dawn of the Dead' because the first ten minutes was actually really, really solid (best part of the movie by a lot). This clip killed any interest i had in seeing this movie. And that's too bad.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

"The Goonies" is overrated, and is not in fact fun. Most of the kids are loud and obnoxious; and they spend more time talking about treasure than looking for it. And I want gangsters that are threatening, not dysfunctional.

Anyway, Ebert managed a review of Speed Racer. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/REVIEWS/115192456

comment #24

Richardson says ...

""The Goonies" is overrated, and is not in fact fun. "

Thanks for settling that. You fucking moron.

comment #25

Richardson says ...

Though I must confess, in honesty, I laughed at the part where the woman who named her child Speed Racer is surprised that he is obsessed with car racing.

comment #26

actionman says ...

DZ:

Jim Emerson wrote that review for Speed Racer, not Ebert.

The Flintstones grossed $360 million worldwide on a $45 million budget. Inspector Gadget grossed $135 million worldwide on a $75 million budget. Both films made killins on video. So, calling both of those films financial disappointments, is rather silly.

And suggesting that The Goonies is overrated isn't gonna win you any new allies around these parts I'm willing to bet...

comment #27

Movie fan09 says ...

and awaay we go!
The life jacket is under your seat.
Place the life jacket over your head.
Fasten the buckle around your waist and tighten the strap.
To inflate, pull the red tabs firmly downwards.
The life jacket can also be inflated manually.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

actionman: "The Flintstones grossed $360 million worldwide on a $45 million budget."

It still looked like a $10 million picture, and it lost the second weekend to Speed.

"Inspector Gadget grossed $135 million worldwide on a $75 million budget."

Actually, it was a $90 million budget.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Sorry, third weekend. And The Lion King made almost double that money to boot.

comment #30

Ogami Itto says ...

And it doesn't look like a overpriced dud like "The Flintstones" and "Inspector Gadget".

That's exactly what it looks like. Not even worth a rental.

Sort of like Tarantino's Asian remakes, except he just used white people to recycle key scenes, while the Wachowskis recreated scenes from scratch.

That's exactly why I like Tarantino's films -- no Asians. God I hate those people. ;-)

comment #31

berkguru says ...

DZ so your logic is because one piece of crap movie made a huge amount of money that somehow discredits the fact that another piece of crap (flintstones) also made a lot of money?

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

berk: No, my logic is that one made money because of who was attached to it. That's not the same as making money because it's good or memorable. See Transformers.

comment #33

actionman says ...

DZ, The Flintstones made $360 million theatrically worldwide. It was a MASSIVE hit. Even at $90 million, Inspector Gadget was still a hit, though not as big.

And of course something like The Lion King would double the gross of The Flintstones; these were the days when the one traditionally animated Disney film for the summer was an almost guaranteed blockbuster and was feared by all the other studios. It also helped that The Lion King was a much, much better movie than The Flintstones.

comment #34

storymark says ...

Wait... people are putting "DZ" and "logic" together in the same sentence....

comment #35

Walter Sobchak says ...

I wanted more but I ran out of quarters.

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

actionman: I'm gonna disagree with you on Gadget. Anything which costs that much and made so little is a flop. The Flintstones, however, was a hit, but by Spielberg standards, it a below-the-radar hit.

comment #37

Craptastic says ...

hahahaha! Walter, that was both a great line and take on the film.

D.Z.-- go start your own site and leave us alone.

comment #38

JckNapier2 says ...

I don't know why the boneheads at WB chose to put the first 10 minutes online. I saw the film the other night and loved it. But I did not love the first ten minutes. It's a film that gets better as it goes along, once the conflicts and characters are firmly established. That opening is not anywhere near the best the film has to offer. It's a much better, more enjoyable film than you've heard. It's fun, it's well acted, and it makes a genuine attempt to be emotionally involving (whether it works for you is up to you, but it worked for me). If those first ten minutes annoy you, then I suggest showing up ten minutes late. There's a lot to like in what comes after.

Scott Mendelson
http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/

comment #39

Richardson says ...

"berk: No, my logic is that one made money because of who was attached to it. That's not the same as making money because it's good or memorable. See Transformers."

So you're arguing that 'Flintstones' was only a hit because it was produced by Steven Spielrock?

comment #40

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: How many hits has John Goodman had under his belt? How many kids born during that time remembered the Flintstones?

Anyway, I'm agreeing with Jeff about the length, although he was clearly watching the wrong film, since I expected Speed Racer, not Talky Racer. It's like Death Proof all over again. Disagree about the chimp, since I barely noticed him. I thought it was Matt Fox who held the film together, and I hope he gets Captain America.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

So I'll eat crow about it being a hit, and agree with the guy who said that, at best, it'll drop hard against Caspian. It'll make money, but it won't be huge.

comment #42

Captain Midnight says ...

I saw this movie tonight with my two kids and wife at a theater in Westchester, NY. 5:40 pm show. Place was about one third filled -- there was a large birthday party of 7-year-olds and a lot of parents with kids ranging from 5 - 12 years old. I have nothing to do with the film industry.

My son is 12 and my daughter is nearly 9.

I thought the negative criticism I've been seeing from mainstream film critics and people here on the site is WAY overboard.

This is a freakin' cartoon, people. What are you expecting, Amadeus? We all loved Speed Racer when we were kids -- did we care that Trixie didn't seem to have a family? No. Were there all kinds of loud colors used back in the early 60's? Of course!

Did we all forget what Speed Racer, Astro Boy, Gigantor, and The Eighth Man were? Cartoons for kids? You want cartoons for adults? Go see Wall-E when it opens.

And what is wrong with a movie being strictly for kids? Did every adult swallow the Pixar Kool-Aid that they insist every film for kids has to have plenty of double entendres and sophisticated jokes for them too?

While this movie could have easily been trimmed by at least a half hour, this is not a movie to take seriously at all -- it's an entertaining kid's flick with tons of innovative eye candy and that's all. Give credit to the Wachowskis and their production team for creating a true unreal cartoon world where the lines blur even more than Roger Rabbit.

I had no problem with Spritle and the chimp at all -- that's what kids movies are all about. And the audience lapped it up. Believe me, these two were Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn next to Jar Jar Binks on the annoyance scale.

I got a kick out of the actual sampled sound effects they used from the cartoon, like when the Mach Five sprung off walls from jacks. Hats off for using the actual theme song throughout the film, as opposed to hiding it.

There were a few points where I wondered if the Wachowskis were trying to break out of their innocent 60's daydream. My daughter reacted during the several times one character or another said "ass" (too much cursing, she said). At another point, Spritle gives the finger to the lead baddie, which had the kids in stitches.

Another drawback was there were also FAR too many flashbacks in the beginning of the film, which I think can be a tough thing for young kids to follow. And that certainly takes up the first 10 minutes here, so I can't see how WB thought that preview segment was going to be alluring.

My son said he liked this better than Iron Man (he gave that an 8.5 and Speed Racer a 9).

comment #43

K. Bowen says ...

The cussing is a little superfluous. I think it was thrown in to avoid a G rating.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Midnight: I'm a cartoon/anime fan/kid at heart, but I was just *bored*. I expected something fun, not padded. Also, none of those shows you name-dropped were technically for kids, just sanitized for American kids. [In fact, two of them were probably used for material in A.I. and Robocop. Though by today's standards of GTA and Hostel-like violence in entertainment, I guess those could be considered for kids...]

The kid and chimp didn't bug me, but they just felt forced into the story. Also, the wall jumps were ripped off of Megazone 23. I'm ok with some of the older content, but the gang war subplot was just dumb and a sad attempt to imitate Scorcese and Temple of Doom/Gremlins Spielberg.

comment #45

Aladdin Sane says ...

Just got in from seeing it. While I thought the pacing was off, especially near the beginning - I think the Wachowski's could have edited action/family history a bit better - overall I gotta say it was fun. Not as good as Iron Man, but light years better than the only other "big" movie I've seen this year: 10 000 BC.
It was bright, colourful and enjoyable. Will I see it again in a theater? Probably not...but it's definitely something that I would pick up on DVD. Actually the problems I have with it are some of the same I had with Pixar's Cars - that too was a movie that suffered from a lack of clear pacing. Weird that two films about racing would suffer of the same issue (at least for me). Still, I liked Speed Racer more than I liked Cars.

Racer X ruled. Glad Matthew Fox was in it. (and yeah, I join the chorus that's glad to see Jason Street getting some work on the big screen).