Speed Racer

I don't love nor hate this film. I enjoy it unlike the haters.

The visuals and acting, plus soundtrack are spot on. I used to have a crush on Emile Hirsch in this film.

But honestly, I could rate this movie higher if Spirtle and his pet monkey wasn't so annoying in this movie. That's my only problem with this film.

I just loved Speed Racer. It did an amazing job at entertaining, and overall the movie blew me away altogether. The movie may have became a little idiotic and somewhat uninteresting at points, but they did a very good job on the script and I loved all the awesome kick-ass action. One of my favorite parts is when they are fighting in the hotel bedroom, that scene was awesome, and I laughed at a lot of the cute jokes too.

I understand it was mostly all for thrills in the vision department, but that is what you should have been expecting when you went in to Overall Speed Racer exceeded my expectations, and in the end I was very glad I had the chance to view it, for I loved it and think it rises above a lot of other movies out there recently. It did not deserves it's Razzie noms. Give it one more chance if you did not like it.

I never saw the Japanese animated series and went into Speed Racer as a pure novice. I also am not of a fan of racing. Notwithstanding I enjoyed the film as a piece of enjoyable entertainment as it chronicles the rise and grit of Speed Racer and the Racer family as they combat the evils of a world built on bribery, consumerism, and sponsorships. While much of the story's finer subtleties may have been lost on me, the film is very easy to understand. It's not Hamlet but is better than some of the mindless entertainment churned out these days in Hollywood. Part of the credit goes to the actors who give their roles enough attention to take them seriously for the most part. Emile Hirsch is fine in the title role. Matthew Fox is really rather good as Racer X. John Goodman gives an acceptable performance as Pops Racer and Susan Sarandon the same as the mom. I really enjoyed the performance of Roger Allam as the heavy. He could ooze with dialog with the best. The directors achieved more importantly a film that is visually stunning and stylistic in its own right. I didn't like all of the innovative things they did. The constant scenes overlapping became tiresome after awhile. But the races had a surrealistic look that made them oddly quite compelling. Speed Racer isn't trying to be taken too terribly serious. After all it is based on an animated series! But it does give the audience a lot of bang for its buck and captivated me the entire time. The biggest annoyance for me was the kid playing Spritle - I just didn't find him cute at all. Not one bit.

Well, what you've got here is a case of audience/critic disagreement. Obviously, this movie will get bashed by the critics because of its cartoonish and campy mood, but that's just it: the world shown on screen by the Wachowski brothers is marvelous. The animation is perfect for the atmosphere they're trying to create. Don't go in expecting Matrix-esquire effects, because there aren't any bullet time scenes. The effects used are so fitting for this movie because they're almost cartoonish and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously.

The film, an adaptation of the long running Japanese anime, revolves around natural racing phenomenon Speed (the wonderful Emile Hirsch) and his family, which somehow includes John Goodman and Susan Sarandon (whoever pulled off this casting deserves some kind of award). Oh yeah, and the casting directors managed to get Matthew Fox and Christina Ricci as well. What really stood out in this area is that everyone involved really understood the characters and the world that Speed Racer is supposed to display. It's not supposed to be overly serious, nor is it supposed to be that realistic either. With the warm performances of Hirsch, Goodman, and Ricci, you get transported into another world (isn't that the point of movies anyway?). Matthew Fox is also great as the mysterious Racer X, whose role is sort of misconstrued by the previews. He showed a different side that I didn't think he could on 'Lost'.

The visual effects, as I've said before, aren't going to be Matrix-esquire, but there are a few "whoa" factor sequences that had my jaw dropping. I also need to warn you that, if you can't take fast camera movements or rapid shots, be careful. It's not as bad as Cloverfield or Blair Witch (because the quickness only occurs in the race sequences), but I'd still try to grab a seat in the middle or back of the theater. The film is visually stunning outside of the races themselves as well. The buildings, the cities, the homes, the cars themselves...all beautiful.

The Wachowski brothers get an A+ for keeping the movie in the spirit of the show as much as they could (they really did a great job), however the film has a major flaw: a runtime of just under 2 and a half hours. That's a BIG no no for a movie that is obviously marketed towards kids, unless it has the names "Star Wars" or "Harry Potter" on it. The film also has a sensual scene or two featuring Ricci and Hirsch, not to mention occasional language.

My advice: don't listen to the critics, see this movie for the fact that it's pure entertainment for the audience, and it will take you away to a visually stunning world for a couple hours. Definitely an enjoyable movie for the entire family.

I saw this the same night as the latest film by my favorite filmmaker and I must admit that this held its own.

Sure, the story is silly and there are the requisite two lessons for children. All the shots with the parents could have been replaced with a dialog card so far as I care. But this is highly cinematic in a fine-grained sense.

Coursegrained long form would be the cinematic values of that Peter Greenaway film, where the narrative has substance and is cast cinematically. The contrast is shocking, with this Wachowski business seeming to be mere busy style.

But look again. There's real value in how the story is told even though the story is as close to vacuous white noise as possible. In fact, there's a statement there that matters. This movie is about movie-making. The watchers of the "race" are watchers of the movie. Its a simple fold.

I consider this the best of the brothers' films because their sometimes intriguing plots distract from their deeper intent. That intent is to visually explore what it means to watch. Sure, those plots are about watching as well. But people watch "The Matrix" and build religions around the story mechanics as if they matter. Previously, "Bound" was my favorite Wachowski film because it suppressed the noise of the story so as to equal the expression of that story in terms of the eye, the desire of eye.

These folks are to Welles as Coltrane is to Getz. They run riffs whose patterns are derived from the languid, meaningfilled studies of what went before, but which are presented so quickly you cannot possibly comprehend the fullness with which they were originally loaded.

That overloading of serious visual grammar has an immediate effect: that we are really there instead of digesting something filtered to be simple enough for us to understand. But there's a deeper effect: there is so much motion here, so many paths we can choose from to decide what we see, that there's a sort of tease between the film and our mind about what options they will present — and what tricks they will use to suggest paths to comprehension. And on our part to discard, to race ahead of the track suggested, to speed ahead and get to the end before even the movie.

I consider this serious work, and an advance in film grammar that possibly will be profound.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.