Fafhrd on 29/4/2008 at 01:49

---

Jumper was more than a bit crap. Some interesting ideas with how the action scenes played out, what with the teleporting around and all, but mostly ho-hum and dull.

I don't know what film circles you hang about in, but the Matrix sequels were crap precisely because they WEREN'T good popcorn flicks. They became too bogged down in their self-important pseudo-philosophical bullshit to be good popcorn flicks.

Do you know what I expect from Speed Racer? I expect a giant trippy technicolour acid trip rollercoaster, and judging by the trailers it's going to deliver that in spades.

From Iron Man I expect a solid Silver Age Marvel style superhero story. And when one of the more cynical professional internet critics calls it "the best superhero film since Spider-man 2," I'm pretty sure I'm not going to disappointed. I also think it's worth seeing on the strength of the cast alone: Robert Downey Jr, Terrence Howard, and Jeff Muthafuckin' Bridges? C'mon, people!

Ko0K on 29/4/2008 at 02:21

---

Yep. This is all about what you expect out of the movie. Anyone who grew up watching SR would attest to the simple characters and plots, even by kids standards. But this movie isn't about sophisticated dialogues or characters everyday people can identify with, as far as I can tell.

From a marketing standpoint, this is just as with any other recent revivals that attempt to strike the nostalgic chord of older generations while bringing in new blood into the franchise. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. I think the Wachowski brothers have the capacity to deliver a marketable product, and this particular product happens to be of interest to me.

Thirith on 29/4/2008 at 06:24

---

I don't think anyone sees anything wrong with it - it's just that a number of us tend not to find films that are 100% artificial all that engaging. And as I said before, those who basically say, "Get off your high horse and enjoy it for what it is - a popcorn movie!" are pretty much a bunch of idiots. Why? Raiders of the Lost Ark. Perfect popcorn movie. There isn't a single thing I would change about that film. I love it, and I don't go all sniffy and "Meh... it's just a kid's action flick, innit?" But there's a difference between, say, Raiders and 10'000 BC. It's not that one is a popcorn movie and the other isn't. It's that one is well made and the other isn't. It's that you can connect to Indy, Sallah, Marion, even to Belloq in a weird way. You don't connect to Dleh<sp?>. It's that one is a great movie and the other is crap.

Peanuckle on 29/4/2008 at 16:41

---

The speed racer movie BETTER have the big man dancing around like a lunatic shouting all kinds of repetitive nonsense, or I won't watch it.

Sypha Nadon on 29/4/2008 at 17:24

---

I'll probably catch "Speed Racer", if only for an excuse to go to the movies (haven't caught a film in theaters since "Cloverfield" which was very good). Also, I like the Wachowskis, though I can understand why a lot of people don't like their work... it is something of an acquired taste.

You know, when "Jurassic Park" was released as a movie I was really excited about it at the time. I was in the sixth or seventh grade and I had just read the book (I think it may have been the first adult book I ever read), and was really pumped to see how they would adapt it. And I remember being somewhat disappointed when I saw the film in theaters. I didn't like how they made the old man John Hammond all cuddly and shit (as in the book his character had very few reedeming qualities), that scientist Wu who did quite a bit on the novel was deregulated to a walk-on, and at the time I really didn't think Jeff Goldblum was a good fit for the character of Malcolm (who in my mind I imagined to look like Gene Siskel for some odd reason). On the other hand, Wayne Knight looked exactly as I imagined the character of Dennis Nedry to look, so that aspect of the film I found satisfying. Oh yeah, and I thought the dinosaurs were cool.