Showing posts with label Fast & Furious. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fast & Furious. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 May 2023

Review: Fast X


Fast X
Cert: 12A / 131 mins / Dir. Louis Leterrier / Trailer

As it hammers the pedal on on the cultural zeitgeist, all those actively engaged on either side of the ongoing WGA strike actions will be further polarised by the revelation that ChatGPT seems to have successfully completed its first full film script. Which is to say, this is technically a script because it's the words the actors are reading aloud, but the content carries an air of indefinable artificiality that cannot be truly recreated by organic beings. Whatever, this jumble of remixed clichés from previous movies is certainly in keeping with the chosen method for its delivery, and it's going to make money from an audience who haven't bought tickets for the wordcraft. Fair.

So, Fast X roars into cinemas at the starting line of Blockbuster Season™ and its sprawling, globe-spanning storyline cannot be coherently summarised in this traditional second paragraph; indeed director Louis Leterrier is unable to do that in two full hours. The main thrust is that Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto (once again using the word "family" as punctuation to the point where you'd think he's the third Mitchell-brother) has fallen out with Jason Momoa's Dante (having the time of his life as a panto-villain effortlessly combining the Joker and Frank-N-Furter). Luckily, they're both psychologically grounded enough to know that the only way to settle this spat is through driving cars and destroying civil engineering infrastructure.


PUNCH


Yes there's races, there's chases and there's punch-in-the-faces. The three credited writers vie to maintain control in a built-up screenplay while the fuel budget and carbon-footprint goes through the roof, dropping leaden hints that the next movie will be the final one (it won't) and struggling to find dialogue that's not just expositing the indescribable. Cinema staff could have paused this at any point and asked who in the audience knew what exactly was going on, and not a single hand would have been raised. Fast X features enough separately filmed sub-plots to ensure that there are huge swathes of this cast who haven't needed to be in the same room this decade.

These strands are of course necessary as a means of showcasing the ever growing cast of A-Listers willing to pout fleetingly for status in a children's film*1 reworking of Last Of The Summer Wine. Their characters' storylines may have ended in previous installments, but that won't stop them clocking back in for an appearance-fee the next time, a sort of Marvel Cinematic Universe with limited imagination (do bear in mind that Sung Kang's character died in the third entry and was ret-conned back to life in the sixth; it's also worth noting that Paul Walker actually died almost a decade ago and he's still showing up). The fact that the same faces return each time to deliver variations on the same plot with no variation on the formula suggests that the American studio system has finally cracked the essence of the Carry On series...


RICHARD


All of this sounds admittedly harsh for a film that nobody forced me to watch, but I'm old enough to remember Fast & Furious being genuinely good. To its credit, the cinematography, editing, stunt performing and choreography here are everything they need to be and more, and the cast are trying their best (albeit with varying levels of success) with the material they're given. You know that for an audience who loves going to the cinema but hates cinema, this will be ideal.


Fast X is loud, brassy, and seemingly happy to be filled with trite aphorisms while meaning absolutely nothing. It's hard to think of a more apt metaphor for the movie business in the 2020s...



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Listen, Fast X is a 12A. The BBFC have reviewed this death-defying action thriller and decided that its levels of threat and intensity are suitable for children to watch. And if online wags can persist in sneering that the Marvel and Star Wars series are 'kids movies' then I'm more than qualified to point out the same of what is essentially Hot Wheels: The Movie, written by a trio of eight year olds who haven't studied physics at school yet. [ BACK ]

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Friday, 2 August 2019

Review: Fast & Furious - Hobbs & Shaw





Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw
Cert: 12A / 136 mins / Dir. David Leitch / Trailer



I can't believe you've come here to read this and decide whether you should go and see Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw. Even if you've only seen one of these before, you already know where you stand on this. The trailer tells you all you need to know, I promise you.

But still. This paragraph would usually be a brief setup/synopsis, although that's barely needed here. Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are the muscle-bound, chalk-and-cheese odd couple who basically flirt with each other for over two hours. They're up against Brixton (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced mercenary (think The Winter Soldier but with more sarcasm) as he tries to recover a weaponised virus for his mysterious employer. The virus has been stolen by Shaw's sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby), an MI-6 agent who did this to prevent it falling into the wrong hands (ie Brixton's), and has been helpfully framed for murder as a result. This film is basically an extended fight-scene, albeit one that's way more entertaining than it has any real right to be.

CONTENDER


A solid contender for 2020's Academy Award in the 'Screenplay Apparently Written By A 15yr Old' category, there's an action sequence every twelve minutes and industrial amounts of exposition between that really don't matter. With the likes of Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Eddie Marsan, Rob Delaney and Kevin Hart all straining to get on the cast list for the hell of it, this sequel-baited strand could well turn into the Carry On of action cinema.

What's perhaps most interesting (if that's the correct word), is that after eight full installments the first Fast & Furious spin-off movie is centered around characters who were only introduced in parts five (Johnson) and six (Statham). This alone should tell you that this is an F&F flick in name only, to the point where there's a surprising lack of vehicle chasing going on. In fact, while the main series has always leaned toward high tech when it comes to show-cars, with the voice-activated attack drones, smart-bikes and cybernetic super soldiers on display in Hobbs & Shaw, the series just took the leap into soft sci-fi. It is second only to Hellboy in 2019's chart of cinematic ridiculousness. Yes, it is that daft.

LADY


The 12A certificate ensures that this is a largely bloodless affair of course, despite more gun-related deaths than you'd care to count. As a result, the fight scenes have editing with cuts so quick you stand more chance of seeing Jason Statham control his own accent than you would a punch actually landing or a single bullet going in. That said, the script which begins with a reliably grubby "nice tats" line to a female tattoo artist also includes such quips as no fuckin' way, bitch, arsehole, balls and wanker. The 'A' in 12A really does stand for 'advisory' more than ever before*1. Take your 8yr old to this and reap precisely what you sow.

But perhaps best of all, writer Chris Morgan seems to believe there are stretches of road from St Paul's Cathedral in London where you could run for five minutes without being picked up by a single CCTV camera. This might actually be the funniest joke in the whole thing. Although there's another screen-nod to Greggs for the 2019 list, which is also outstanding work.

SO BEAUTIFUL SO RIGHT MY LOVER EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE


Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw is good. In places it's even great. Everything you expect and fear it to be*2, it's loud, funny, makes no sense*3 and is indelibly cheesy. Director David Leitch is not going to change your life, and doesn't claim to try. If you're along for the ride, Hobbs & Shaw is great fun, and is not even going to attempt to change your pre-existing opinions, so leave any baggage back in the car park.

But it's also at least half an hour longer than it needs to be*5, and a more cynical reviewer might remark that the it has the absolute gall to evoke the great Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner during Elba's final scene, before the movie limps to a damp squib of an ending.

I couldn't possibly comment…



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
As much as I enjoyed Hobbs & Shaw, I really can't emphasis enough that it's not a Fast & Furious™ film. This is M:I-Lite with dick-jokes, although it does still carry that slightly unhealthy obsession with Fahh'mly™.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
If you're going to see it at all, sure.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
The film will lose quite a bit of punch on the journey to the small screen, but if you're a collector of the series then you'll be happy to have it on the shelf all the same.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
With the best will in the world, no.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
That's entirely possible.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.
Which, for a movie such as this, is an absolutely unforgivable sin
.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Well there's a scripted Death Star reference, a Han & Chewie reference, and also Rogue One Vader's in this.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Although credit where it is undeniably due, the 'Michael Oxmaul' routine is a great joke, and while I chuckled more than I'd like to admit throughout Hobbs & Shaw, this was the one gag which caused me to shamelessly guffaw. [ BACK ]

*2 How come Vanessa Kirby's Hattie is an absolute bad-ass up until the point where Hobbs and Shaw have a conversation where Hobbs points out that she's an absolute bad-ass and from then onwards she's just The Girl One? The movie managed to leave behind gratuitous shots of women in swimsuits after the first twenty minutes, and I expected better, frankly. [ BACK ]

*3 All the bad guys' firearms have activator-chips Because Technology.
"We can get the weapons offline for six minutes!" says Hattie.
"Six minutes could be all we need!" says Deckard.
So that'll be why the Samoan gang*4 are squaring off against the goons in bike-leathers in pitch blackness, it kicks off, then all of a sudden it's broad daylight and they're still fighting using fists and sticks and the guns come back online about ten minutes later when they're chasing a helicopter off a cliff? Okay then… [ BACK ]

*4 Don't even ask how Dwayne Johnson's (a notably proud Samoan) screen-family are shown to be living in Samoa when more than half of them are clearly from New Zealand over two thousand miles away. I know they're all Polynesian, that doesn't mean they're all the same for actual fuck's sake…
(and yeah, I did a footnote-within-a-footnote for this one. That's how committed I am to calling out lazy casting-racism. I mean when I notice it, admittedly.) [ BACK ]

*5 No really, this is too fucking long for what it is. And if your bladder is strong enough there are three during-credits scenes plus one afterward. I have to be honest and admit that I didn't see the final one as The Need To Pee™ proved greater. Seriously, you know those ones where you realise about halfway through that you should have timed yourself, and then you slowly realise that you realised this when you weren't even halfway through and it's not like you've even been drinking booze and dear god will it ever stop? Oh, just me then. TMI. Okay, as you were... [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Friday, 3 April 2015

Review: Fast & Furious 7

World of Blackout Film Review

Fast & Furious 7 Poster

Fast & Furious 7
Cert: 12A / 137 mins / Dir. James Wan / Trailer
WoB Rating: 6/7


Now personally, I wouldn't have thought that the seventh part of what is essentially the Top Gear: The Movie franchise would have enough commercial or cultural heft to warrant a midnight showing. Luckily I don't work for Universal who organised one anyway. Being the dutifully enthusiastic cinema enthusiast, I went along in the company of a hundred or so other folks who couldn't possibly wait until normal viewing hours the following day.

Following the events of Fast & Furious 6, Vin Diesel returns once more as Toretto, with his team being hunted by the big, bad brother of Owen Shaw (naturally when you've had an actor like Luke Evans who's pathologically unable to hide his Welsh accent, you'd cast gritty-cockney Jason Statham as the kid he grew up with). Tasked by a US governmental black-ops organisation, Toretto's crew have to retrieve a stolen computer chip and take out Shaw The Elder, spending a ridiculous amount of money on tyres and ammunition along the way.

Directing duties for FF7 fall to horror-helmsman James Wan, and he brings us an incredibly focussed film. It's lighter on the snappy humour than last time around, but that's largely due to Dwayne Johnson's Hobbs being on the bench for the first two acts (and a feeling of relief sweeps over the audience when he suits up for the film's climax). That said, Wan certainly has his work cut out containing Kurt Russell, who can't stop twirling his moustache as the government spook who wants The Maguffin ASAP. The film is even bigger and louder than its predecessor, with the cars and buildings a bit dirtier (with the exception of the Abu Dhabi sequence*1), and many of the previously blue skies being noticeably overcast.

It's still an insane amount of fun, of course, and occasionally is the dumbest Fast & Furious film to date. This is thanks in no small part to Jason Statham, who is simultaneously perfect for the franchise, yet manages to derail the proceedings by being little more than a cardboard-cutout of a bad guy. It's a sight to behold, Statham and Diesel trying to out-stupid each other on the top of a multi-story car park with massive spanners (not a euphemism). By no means on The Stath's list of bad performances, he seems wasted if anything, reduced to an angry cartoon villain by the final reel.

It's good to note that FF7's editing is a lot clearer than FF6's, so that your average viewer can actually tell what's going on during the chase/fight sequences, and features a setpiece where five vehicles are airdropped from a cargo plane, which makes the skydiving sequence from Iron Man 3 look like a school gymnastics display. Long-time F&F writer Chris Morgan knows exactly how these things work by now, of course, and plays to everyone's strengths*2, even if the sought-after computer chip is ridiculously overpowered even by today's standards, and the gift-wrapped bomb on Toretto's porch destroys the entire house but doesn't vaporise the three humans standing unprotected within a 15-foot radius in the other direction. But if I start questioning the internal logic of Fast & Furious movies, I guess I'll get the answers I deserve.

While it's not intentionally a 'grimmer' film, you're constantly aware that this is Paul Walker's final outing. FF7 gives a beautifully fitting sendoff to Walker; warmly sentimental without being mawkish, and it's clear in the film's final moments just how much he meant to his fellow cast members (ie family). Even I'll readily admit that I wiped away a tear as the credits rolled.

Sure, it's formulaic as hell, but when your customers love the product this much*3, why would you go and change it?



Is this film worth paying £10+ to see?
Big and loud, it certainly is.


Well, I don't like the cinema. Buy it, rent it, or wait for it to be on telly?
This will be a buy-er.


Does this film represent the best work of the leading performer(s)?
With the best will in the world, I'm not sure I can go that far.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
It certainly does.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Maybe just a little.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't, and it's not good enough.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
Well, in addition to the (albeit brief) appearance of series-regular Han Seoul-Oh, Statham's character is named Deckard (cf Blade Runner), and the film features a scenery-chewing turn from Kurt Russell, who of course auditioned for the role of Han Solo. The film's like a love-letter to Harrison Ford, albeit discreetly..


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Are there really that many hot women strolling around in bikinis in the city in Abu Dhabi? Because that's not the impression I get...
*2 Well okay, maybe not to Statham's.
*3 This is part seven of a franchise, after all.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Fast & Furious 6 (second-pass)

World of Blackout Film Review

Fast & Furious 6 Poster

Fast & Furious 6 (second-pass)
Cert: 12A / 145 mins / Dir. Justin Lin / Trailer
WoB Rating: 5/7


So, Fast & Furious 6 may be way too long for its own good (much like the apparent 18 mile runway at the film's climax), and it may have more casual sexism than an entire series of On The Buses, and it may have a plot so thin that you could hold it up and watch TV through it, but when the wheels are spinning and the fists are flying, it's undeniably enormous fun.

And it bears repeating that any movie which features an overt product placement for Seabrook Crisps deserves a misty-eyed respect from those of us on the Blighty-side of the pond.

Bravo.



Is this film worth paying £10+ to see?
Obviously not for everybody, and you probably won't get the chance now as this was a part-retrospective double-bill, but if you're a fan? Yes.


Well, I don't like the cinema. Buy it, rent it, or wait for it to be on telly?
It's a buy-er.


Does this film represent the best work of the leading performer(s)?
I've probably seen each of its prominent stars better elsewhere, I think.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Without doubt.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Nope.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There bloody isn't. Don't worry, I'm going to write a letter.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
Well, as it's the 6th F&F movie...
1) The film's bad-guy Luke Evans starred in The Battle Of The Five Armies, as did Sir Christopher 'Count Dooku' Lee.
2) Gina Carano played the central character in Haywire, alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
3) Dwayne Johnson appeared in GI Joe: Retaliation, as did Ray 'Darth Maul' Park (The Phantom Menace).
4) Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges starred in 2009's Gamer, which also featured Sam 'Darth Maul' Witwer (The Clone Wars).
5) Vin Diesel was of course Riddick, which also starred Katee 'Bo Katan' Sackhoff.
6) Paul Walker had a role in 2010's Takers, a film also starring Hayden 'Anakin' Christensen.

Oh, ka-BOOM.
.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.