I’ve been reading the reviews, seen much scathing commentary, scratching my head over the hostility engendered by “Speed Racer.” I’ve been wondering whether others saw the same film that my family dID: 00 The kids’ film that people slam as being too long for kids, yet five-year-old Caroline was captivated, and I thought was thoroughly engaging.
And I realized a lot of this negativism was sounding familiar to me. Too long. Too loud. Too overwhelming visually with lots of mindless sound and fury signifying nothing. And I realized where and when I had heard it all before:
“Blade Runner.”
Critics and fans leveled many of the same complaints at “Blade Runner,” comparing it unfavorably to other then-popular SF films, and it was crushed at the box office by a powerhouse called “E.T.” “Blade Runner” tanked.
Yet over time it was seen as visionary, and its stylings let an indelible impression on fans and future filmmakers. Any number of dramatic endeavors have the visual stamp of “Blade Runner” upon them.
I think that’s what’s happened here. I think “Speed Racer,” consistent for its title character, is ahead of the pack, and no one has realized it yet. I suspect you’re going to see tricks from “Speed Racer” showing up in other films in the next years, and it’s going to be one of those movies in which, years from now, film students are going to be seeing the basis for many subsequent films. While now people dismiss Emile Hirsch as being bland, others are going to realize he wisely underplays the titular character to serve as a quiet center against the overplaying of his costars and the go-go visuals that surround him. The constant motion of the wipes and the way that even heavily expository scenes are made visually stimulating are going to be aped in subsequent movies.
“Speed Racer” may crash, but like a first rate car, it’s going to be cannibalized for its parts.
PAD
• 
I’m still trying to figure out what movie these critics went to see. I had an absolute blast, my wife really enjoyed it, the kids in the front row down from us were really rockin’ in their seats to the upbeat Speed Racer theme during the credits, and so far as I’m concerned this movie summer is 2-0 in coolness. That’s it, I’m going out to my garage, rummage through the boxes and boxes of stored action figures and find some place in this office to display my Speed figures and the Mach 5.
And I want, want, WANT Michael Giachinno’s score. His best since since The Incredibles, hands down!
i think Penelope Pittstop was a spinoff–it also had the anthill mob, but the villain was voiced by Paul Lynde, if I remember correctly.
Wacky Races—7 issues, Gold Key, 1969-72. Does that help explain why it is so hard to remember it?
Laff-A-Lympics—13 issues, Marvel, 1978-9. 30 years ago.
Patrick Calloway, did you even see the movie?
Tell me you remember the “Laff-o-lipics”…
I can’t say I remember those, but how about “Animalympics”? A staple of early-80s HBO subscribers, that one — and really quite good, I think.
As for the original topic of this post, I never really saw the appeal of the original Speed Racer series, so have little to no attachment to the film. Glad PAD enjoyed it, though.
TWL
“No. It’s really not.” is the succinct four word post James McClain felt was lacking in persuasive power. I think he was right about that. It is not an argument, but an appeal to authority. The initial post made two things very clear: that PAD thinks “Speed Racer” is very good, and that he is perplexed that many critics disagree. It does not make any persuasive argument that he is right and they are wrong.
My 11 year old son and I LOVED Speed Racer. We’re going again, and we’re taking mom this time.
Just an FYI background on the original manga:
The title was never “Speed Racer.” It was “Mach Go,Go,Go!” Mach in Japanese is pronounced “MA-ha”–anything in Japanese with a “-ch” at the end is transliterated being pronounced “ha”–which is why Johan Sebastian Bach’s last name is pronounced “BA-ha”
So the title was “MA-ha Go,Go,Go” which in itself was a pun,of sorts:
Go was Speed Racer’s first name
Go in Japanese is the number 5, hence the number of the car
The final Go was, well, GO!
Just a little background on the character for y’all…
The Perils of Penelope Pitstop was a spin-off from Wacky Races, but it wasn’t a direct spin-off. It had a rather odd creation and set up. One of the guys I went through academy with got both shows on DVD for his wife and their young daughter a few years ago. Pitstop seemed to have an odd habit of every episode (or at least those that I saw over at there place only, so I could be wrong) starting out with a recap of the last episode. The last episode that it recapped never existed though. It always jumped into the “peril” part while bypassing any of the story needed to get there.
And I’m pretty sure that Bill remembers correctly about Paul Lynde. That’s a hard voice to hear and misidentify.
I haven’t seen Speed Racer, so I can’t speak for the film’s quality. I can however speak on the critics. Screw ‘em. I stopped paying attention to most critics some time ago precisely because of stuff like this. I’d see critics ripping something apart that I liked, my friends liked, my coworkers liked and most the people I saw blogging liked. I decided years ago that The Simpsons nailed the mindset of many movie critics dead on with the episode where Homer worked as a food critic. Many of them almost seem as if they feel that they have rip something apart to be doing their job properly. Then on the flipside there are the ones who seem to like everything and are equally useless.
If I think I’ll like it, I’ll take my chances. If I don’t think I’ll like it but a lot of people who I know and trust say it’s good (Iron Man) then I’ll give it a chance. If the local critic says it’s awful, I have no idea. I quit reading him years ago.
I enjoyed the film immensely and plan on seeing it again and getting the soundtrack. I still can’t believe it only grossed $20 million over the weekend. I didn’t think it would beat Iron Man but I figured it would do $40-50 million. Maybe it will do better this weekend as there are no big films opening.
“I suspect a majority of the people you know don’t have a beef with the Wachowskis. Hollywood thrives on two things: Taking glee in the success of unknowns, and taking even more glee in the failure of people who are successful. Ridley Scott made the critically acclaimed “The Duelists” and the financial smash-hit “Alien.” I suspect plenty of people were itching to see him take a fall, and when a visionary film that a lot of people didn’t “get” came out, they seized the opportunity. I think we’re seeing a replay of that now.”
Critics don’t have a “beef” with the Wachowskis, either. Why would a critic WANT a filmmaker(s) to make a bad film, especially if they enjoyed their work in the past? It’s also presumptuous to assume that critics didn’t “get” Speed Racer, just because they didn’t like it.
I’d take that bet, Peter. Speed Racer is an incredible experience. I have no doubt future filmmakers will mine it for its visual treasures, but I don’t think it will be revered for its ingenuity and style like Bladerunner.
Visual tech has just become so prevalent in film (and video games) that today’s audience expects each movie to out digital the last. We don’t wonder about the craft like we did in 1982. Yes, we can still be wowed by experiences like Speed Racer, but I doubt anyone will look back on that film with any kind of special appreciation. We’ll all just be looking forward to the next screen candy.
I saw it in IMAX with my Wife (we are both in our mid 30’s) and we loved it as did the whole audience.
Considering the source material (of which I am a huge fan) I thought they made the best possible movie. Great inside jokes and sight gags that really paid homage to the best of the cartoon while updating it for todays audiences. It really is a kids movie (with a great family message) but has guns and an anti-corporate message some adults can get behind.. 😉
Mike
Peter I usually find myself fully in agreement with your opinions but in this case I really have to wonder what you were smoking!
‘Blade Runner’ had a great script, great acting and real depth to it. ‘Speed Racer’ has none of those things and exists for no other reason that to sell toys; and thankfully for once the public didn’t fall for it.
So Simon’s claim that this movie exists just to sell toys is silly. If he had read any of the backstory on the Wachowski Brother’s journey to make this movie he’d know that this was very personal for them.
Comparing it to Blade Runner is a tad Over The Top though.
I was vastly entertained…Roger Averall is the new Tim Curry.
It would be nice if those without bias (I am excluding certain shrouded individuals here since I would never expect my postings to get a fair shake from such) would reread my original post. I am not comparing it to “Blade Runner” in terms of its overall quality. So those who are stridently asserting that “Blade Runner” is the superior film are wasting their time. I am comparing it to “Blade Runner” in terms of its reception and in terms of how the visual stylings are likely going to impact on the next generations of film makers.
Simon: Have you actually read any of the background on how the film was made? Because if so you would realize that the affection for the source material, and the desire to make a family film, was the motivation for the filmmakers involved. Have you actually seen the movie itself?
PAD
Now I want to see Speed Racer not for the comparison of its reception and visual precociousness to Blade Runner but because I really like Bugsy Malone.
Speaking as a shrouded individual, the comparison that PAD draws between “Speed Racer” and “Blade Runner” is accurate. Both movies are much less popular than the filmmakers would have wished. It seemed he was also drawing a comparison between their (as he sees it) overall quality, but I must take him at his word that he was not.
Apparently, here is the situation. Many critics don’t like the film, but PAD does. Some posters here think film critics are a terrible bunch, daring to disagree with their own beliefs or to buck public opinion. I think that is short-sighted. Critics should apply their own well-reasoned standards, rather than being cheerleaders.
Gotta say, I wasn;t planning on seeing this movie until reading this and given the rough day at work on Monday (yesterday), I needed silly fun. And, boy, did I get it! Sure, it’s not perfect and the effects make the Star Wars prequels look like they were shot on location but it was fun. In fact, my main complaint would be that the kids in the theatre enjoyed it TOO much. They wouldn’t stop hooting and hollering during the Spridel (sp) and chim chim scenes and the fight scenes had most of them up and cheering. I enjoyed Iron Man and Forbidden Kingdom a lot more than it but I can see some of PAD’s point. I think this one will grow in acceptance and popularity.
Oh, and I don’t really like Blade Runner. I still find it drags and is just dull. I care little for the characters and only just recently tried it again. I give it a shot with each new “version”. Still didn’t like it.
The original Star Wars came out 31 years ago. You’d have to be around 45 years old, maybe 50, to fully realize how astounding the special effects were at the time. It was truly a groundbreaking movie. As a story, it is rather ordinary, having been based on ideas from popular science fiction and the pulps. It’s all well done enough, but the special effects have elevated it to the status of being one of the most important films of its time.
If you don’t live in and experience a culture as it happens, you do not really understand how much certain things affect that culture. Using hindsight, you can see that the effect was massive, but you can never feel the impact the same way as those who were there.
Citizen Kane is one of the all-time great movies. As I have read (I wasn’t alive then), it used techniques not really used before, and had a huge impact on how movies were made. Star Wars was equally important (even though not of the same quality). Peter David says Blade Runner was hugely important. Perhaps Speed Racer is also as important. Only time will tell.
==========
(Disclaimer about Blade Runner—I didn’t see it in the theater. I was unemployed at the time, and couldn’t afford the movies. I therefore have no idea how the movie was received at the time.)
The original Star Wars came out 31 years ago. You’d have to be around 45 years old, maybe 50, to fully realize how astounding the special effects were at the time. It was truly a groundbreaking movie. As a story, it is rather ordinary, having been based on ideas from popular science fiction and the pulps. It’s all well done enough, but the special effects have elevated it to the status of being one of the most important films of its time.
Well, I was twenty when it came out, so I certainly remember the impact it had. Here’s the interesting thing: Reaction at industry screenings was muted to say the least (Martin Scorsese, if I’m remembering correctly, who was Lucas’ mentor, was downright hostile.) No one expected the thunderous reception it received.
And I still remember the story I was told a few years ago by a studio exec about the 20th Century Fox lawyer who boasted in the mid 1970s how he had saved the studio about fifty grand because he had let that dumb Lucas keep the merchandising rights for his silly little space movie. One billion dollars later…
Anyway, what amused me over the reception that “Phantom Menace” received was that people bìŧçhëd about the poorly written script, the wooden acting, and the lousy directing, and the only saving grace was that the effects were amazing. And I laughed because that was exactly the case with the original, except back then–as Alan correctly says–no one had ever seen anything like those effects, and so it covered a myriad of sins.
PAD
Hmmm. Well, I suspect that Harrison Ford’s Han Solo was another factor in the original trilogy’s success, too.
I’d go with more than just Ford — the original SW was gifted with a number of actors who could rise above their material pretty well, including Guinness and Cushing. (I’ve thought for years that Cushing’s delivery of one of Tarkin’s final lines — “Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!” — did a beautiful job of encapsulating the entire character.)
That said, I certainly see PAD’s point about the parallels.
TWL
While I agree that first “Star Wars” movie suffered from flawed writing, I believe people don’t give the script enough credit. The “ordinary” story was cast from mythic archetypes that still strike a chord with most of us to this day. As I understand it, this wasn’t by accident: Lucas studied many of those archetypes before writing the story. Despite much of the bad dialogue and other flaws in the story, it grabs people because we still respond to King Arthur & Merlin, the Black Knight, the handsome rogue who is naughty on the surface but moral at his core, etc. etc.
I believe the prequels were less well-received in large part because they provided an unnecessary backstory. The beauty of these archetypes, when done well, is that you don’t have to go into great expository detail in order to employ them in a story.
Re: Speed Racer, I’m on the fence about this one. I loathed the cartoon as a kid. It’s not worth going into why — I reacted to it as a kid should: like a kid.
I think I’ll wait to hear feedback from friends of mine who see it before making my choice. The source material may not hold a place in my heart, a good film is a good film regardless of where it came from.
I’m on the fence about Speed Racer, too. I’ve only seen the cartoon a few times (back when they showed it on MTV), but I loved what I saw of it (enough to actually buy a Speed Racer watch when I was college). But the trailers really turned me off, and The Matrix Reloaded soured me on the Wachowskis. And of course there are the bad reviews. But a small part of me kind of wants to see it, even though I’ll probably hate it.
And let’s not forget the importance of the John Williams score to the success of Star Wars. Seriously, I could read my grocery list to a John Williams score, and it would sound dramatic and urgent and full of passion. That score sold the mythic depth of the plot in a way that the dialogue could never have carried off on its own, no matter who was delivering the lines.
I like d Speed Racer.
Still don’t like Blade runner.
I don’t think whether someone likes “Blade Runner” or not is all that relevant. Like it or not, it had a huge visual impact on subsequent filmmakers. Writers can say to producers, “Picture a Blade Runner-esque future,” or directors can say, for instance, to a scenic designer, “I’m going for a dystopian Blade Runner look” and it will immediately be understood.
And I’m saying that I think down the line you’re going to see films that have a direct lineage to “Speed Racer” in terms of their storytelling. I’m not even necessarily talking about stuff like the car races. There’s one sequence, for instance, in which there are simply two men standing completely still in a room talking to each other, but the camera moves nonstop in a horizontal pan that keeps overlapping the two speakers in different positions. It was amazing. There is a storytelling vibrancy and sense of envelope pushing that renders “I liked it/I didn’t like it” moot insofar as the future of filmmaker is concerned; I’m saying “Speed Racer” has a sense of visual urgency unlike anything before and I think you’re going to see more of it.
Just to give a context: “Space Odyssey” bores the living crap out of me. I think it’s obsessed with its own pretentiousness. But it had an undeniable impact on the legacy of SF films and a place in history that makes whether I liked it or not pretty much beside the point, unless it’s a question of, “Hey, Peter, they’re running a retrospective at a local cinema and “2001” is first up, do you want to come?”
PAD
I have to agree with Peter a 100%. I actually enjoyed it as much if not more than Iron Man, and the final moments of the Grand Prix race created such a euphoric mix of sound, emotion, and visuals that I almost choked on my own glee. A fantastic movie and a stunning accomplishment. I found the Matrix sequels as incompetent and boring as anyone and can admit that I didn’t want to do to this movie. I’m glad I did.
I really wonder how Speed Racer will be received in countries where the original cartoon has never aired. Which is, IIRC, most of Europe. In France, we never saw it on TV, to the best of my knowledge (I was away from french TV for two years in the seventies, so maybe it aired then). It wasn’t part of the big manga invasion that started in the seventies with Grendizer/Goldorak. And frankly, the trailer didn’t do much to sell the movie to me.
BTW, saw Iron Man, and loved it. Mainly because of the main actors. Worth seeing it for Robert Downey Jr.’s prestation, and the loveliness of Gwineth Paltrow.
Another thing Star Wars had going for it was a certain “bounce”.
I’m looking at you, Carrie. Boy, am I looking at you.
I saw Speed Racer a second time today. I wanted to see if it held up to another viewing, and I wanted to see if there was anything I missed during All That Pizzazz. It did, and I didn’t miss too much the first time.
This is the first movie I have seen twice in the theater since Tim Burton’s Batman. (I had wanted to see the first Kill Bill a second time, but got busy and then it was gone.)
I saw this yesterday, a Monday matinee showing, and was put off at first by a number of factors.
It reached its zenith in the scenere wherein, while Speed is clashing with the big corporate guy, Spridle and Chim Chim are zipping around teh building in a golf-cart, scattering computer-generated Segway-riding corporate drones in their wake. It was ludicrous. I scowled. Then I thought, “Waitaminute! This is what the cartoon was like!” And I just got it. “Speed Racer” is the old cartoon with live actors.
So, send in a critic who doesn’t remember the cartoon, and you’re going to get a nonsensical review. GIGO. No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.
Han Solo’s story, at least in the first movie, is a lot like Rick Blaine’s in Casablanca. They’re both hiding out among refugees from universal war. It’s a story that I think could have saved Redford’s Lions for Lambs (re: the student whose passion Redford tries to ignite, more on the drama of escapism as the virtual refuge from dealing with US imperialism).
Alan Coil:”Another thing Star Wars had going for it was a certain “bounce”.
I’m looking at you, Carrie. Boy, am I looking at you.”
Yeah, but that wasn’t really there in force until the metal bikini. I still can’t believe how big that thing has gotten. Who would have guessed back then that, of all things Star Wars, Leia’s Metal Bikini would have become almost a fan cult and earned its own website?
[i]No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.[/i]
So now the movie isn’t allowed to stand on its own?
That’s pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don’t you think?
And not very good storytelling.
No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.
So now the movie isn’t allowed to stand on its own?
That’s pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don’t you think?
And not very good storytelling.
I suspect you’re going to see tricks from “Speed Racer” showing up in other films in the next years, and it’s going to be one of those movies in which, years from now, film students are going to be seeing the basis for many subsequent films.
You mean, like how everybody attributes “bullet time” to The Matrix, even though the actual visual effect predated that particular Wachowski bros. film? 😉
I hated the cartoon, and I cringed when I read that they were turning it into a movie. But even I’m shocked that it did so poorly for its opening weekend. Hopefully it will be enough to discourage them from doing a sequel.
Craig, what other movies did “bullet time” first? I’m not doubting you, just wondering. As I recall, the first time I saw it was in those great old GAP jean ads (probably directed by Michel Gondry since he seems to have directed all of my favorite commercials.0 where the people were dancing.
I still give Matrix cred for using the technique better than anyone else did and having it actually make sense, as opposed to, say, HOUSE OF THE DEAD, which just used it for the sake of using it, among its many other cinematic crimes against God and Nature.
First some context… I was a Speed Racer addict as a kid. I must have watched on average an episode a day between the ages of 3 and 7, so to say I’m biased to having a positive reaction to Speed Racer would be an understatement.
My girlfriend and I (we’re both 26) were very excited to see it in IMAX. Luckily, we both allow ourselves to have fun and I can leave my cynicism at the door, because we really enjoyed the movie.
Our main difference of opinion was she thought Matthew Fox was really good (but she’s admittedly biased), while I’m still not sure if he was too flat or not, like he was trying to play cool but missing the mark. However, Racer X is above Batman in my personal pantheon of “cool” heroes, and I realize it’s tough to live up to the imagination of the 4 year old in me.
Speaking of imagination, I think that’s one of the strengths of the movie. They took care to show lay over animations as extensions of children’s/adults imaginations. With the crayon drawings at the beginning of young Speed. The adult Speed’s image of his brother’s ghost. And later on Sprydle’s (a name which I don’t think has any standardized spelling) fighting visions, which were set up well with the television show to be used later in the rally fight scenes.
Special effects are too often used just to make things “look real”, I prefer this style where it used to support/enhance the “vision” of the characters and directors.
As for the plot and pacing, I think the story was very good translation of what have been told over the course of a couple seasons of the show. It was very considerate of the source material, I loved that they included a rally race and the wheel buttons.
Anyway, long and short of it is, I had fun and I don’t care if that makes me seem foolish/geeky.
Speed Racer is so Spy Kids, but his esthetic should be so. I wanted to see Japanese actors.
“You mean, like how everybody attributes “bullet time” to The Matrix, even though the actual visual effect predated that particular Wachowski bros. film? ;)”
“Craig, what other movies did “bullet time” first? I’m not doubting you, just wondering. As I recall, the first time I saw it was in those great old GAP jean ads (probably directed by Michel Gondry since he seems to have directed all of my favorite commercials.0 where the people were dancing.”
I know that Woo-ping Yuen (who worked on the Matrix) and others did tricks like the bullet time effect in Hong Kong action and fantasy films for some time prior to that film, but the thing wasn’t quite as polished and didn’t use bullets or the streaming effect behind them. You would see an effect very much like it with an arrow or group of arrows being fired at a hero or mystically inclined villain and it was much the same but with less “Hollywoodized” CGI support in the FX. I think it’s safer to say that, rather than inventing it, Wachowski bros. took something that existed before and, depending on your POV, polished/perfected/modernized it. Or screwed it up as one friend of mine sees it.
Leviathan: No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.
Luigi Novi: Somehow I doubt that the filmmakers–or any competent filmmaker for that matter–would impose such a limitation on the potential audience for their film. A good chunk of the people going to see this film probably haven’t seen the series, and they are perfectly qualified to judge it. It’s their money they paying to see it, and no notice has been given that seeing the series is required before seeing the film to understand it. If the film doesn’t stand on its own merits, then it has failed as a narrative/creative effort.
Bill Mulligan: What other movies did “bullet time” first?
Luigi Novi: I remember thinking at the time The Matrix came out how odd it was that everyone made such a big deal about that effect that they were satirizing it, when I had seen it used in at least a few other things already, but the only one I can recall offhand is in the opening title and interstitial sequences of The Howard Stern Show on E! network.
I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me before, but I looked it up at Wikipedia, and there’s a list of works that used the effect both prior to and since The Matrix, but those much older ones used different technology to achieve look similar to what is used today for Bullet Time, as the effect can be achieved with other techniques like pure CGI and motion capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time
The thing about “Bullet Time” that The Matrix was first at was motion. Yes, others had used the frozen moment effect (the Gap commercials, and Wing Commander), but they were moments in which the camera moved around a frozen moment, With The Matrix, it expanded to more of a relative time, and made the effect much more dynamic than what had come before.
I think the test of how good this film is, will be if it is on the NSW Higher School Cerificate English curriculum – “Blade Runner” is.
No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.
So now the movie isn’t allowed to stand on its own?
That’s pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don’t you think?
I don’t know that I agree with the initial sentiment, but I think it’s important to distinguish between “critic” and “reviewer.”
A reviewer need not have seen the original series. A reviewer is the guy who goes, sees the film, says, “I saw it, here’s what it’s about, Here’s why I think it is/isn’t worth your money.” The typical crap you see on the internet–“I read it, here’s a spoiler-laden description, I thought it sucked”–is a review.
A critic, on the other hand, should have a more expansive knowledge of the subject matter. He should be able to put the film into some sort of context, judging against others of its type. I would have to think that a critic would need to be familiar with the origins of the material in order to assess whether the film’s creators succeeded in their goal to create a live-action version of the original series while simultaneously producing a film that works on its own.
PAD
Re: Bullet Time: one thing The Matrix did well was that this effect was used as a part of the story, and not just as a ool effect tacked on a movie, as it has been used so many times before and since then. In other words, there was a reason for it to be there. Reason that didn’t exist in movies like Die Another Day, or the documentary Walking With (Prehistoric) Beasts.
Re: Bullet Time: one thing The Matrix did well was that this effect was used as a part of the story, and not just as a cool effect tacked on a movie, as it has been used so many times before and since then. In other words, there was a reason for it to be there. Reason that didn’t exist in movies like Die Another Day, or the documentary Walking With (Prehistoric) Beasts.