dnroth

It's not hilarious. However, some of the sequences follow tried-and-true comic methods and are very effective at making you laugh. It does leave one wishing that more thought had gone into some of the comedy, however. In short, there is some cleverness, but it only comes in little bursts, rather than benefitting the movie as a whole. See it on video, where the cost is much lower.

I was expecting non-stop action and didn't get it. Simply because a movie doesn't live up to my misled expectations doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, however. I found this movie to be one that possessed some really good things and some really bad ones.

First, the movie does have some horrible expository writing that the actors could have done without. I don't think that directors can take the "but this is an action movie!" stance, since both good writing and good action buildup have coincided peacefully and rightfully in other movies.

Second, I can't help but contrast the camera angles with those of Mission: Impossible 2's. Obviously, in Gone in 60 Seconds, the director wanted the audience to feel disoriented. I think he went a tad overboard. The result was too disorienting. Woo was able to find a good balance; the director of Gone in 60 Seconds was not.

Third, knowing of the original, I was excited about a multi-million remake. The director should have taken some hints from the movie's predecessor. I wanted to see cars crash, spin and soar. The only true chase was alright, but it leaves you begging for more and wishing that there was more true action in the movie overall.

Fourth, although the writer knew that there had to be multiple antagonists to be pitted against the strong protagonists, they turn out to be weak, and in some cases, ill-fitted for a movie where the audience is expecting chases to happen in cars, not on foot (see the movie, you'll see what I mean).

Fifth (onto the good things), despite the extensive and numbing expository, there were some very subtle parallels plugged into the plot. The villain's salvage yard versus Otto's restoration shop is one for example. There was at least, some thought put into the writing after all.

Sixth, the contrast of and tensions between the young and old generations was also delightful. For me, that was one of the best things about the movie.

So, I'd give it a 5 out of 10. The action was good, but the camera angles stank. The writing had some very good ideas plugged into it, but the exposition and protagonist/antagonist conflict were ludicrous. So, see the movie and enjoy it. It's not a pure action movie, but it's neither a drama. If you want a one-time thrill and don't care much about what is said in a movie, this one's for you.

Simon's carefully written dialogues are truly electrified by Matthau and Burns. You can literally hear the script crackle. There are few movies out there that can develop such a relationship between the actors and the script. For example, the famed reunion scene could have been a lot duller with less-quality actors involved. Matthau seems to had been born to play Willie Clark (of course, Oscar moreso in the Odd Couple), and with all of the little idiosyncracies and mannerisms that Matthau crams into the character (the line where he is arguing that he is with it since he lives in the city whereas Lewis lives in the country that Lewis is "out of touch" is the quintessential example of this) make this one of the best performances I've ever seen of any actor in any role, be it comedic or drama or whatever else. Period. Matthau and Burns work excellently together; the contrast they portray accentuates Simon's superb knack at creating comedic conflict. This movie is simply one of the ultimate "must-sees" and does demand a rightful prestigious place in the pages of film history.