Supercross

This movie was fun. I feel bad for the hardcore Supercross fans though, since a lot of the details on the bikes were really sloppily done. That is the directors or editors part. Do some research before you put that in the movie. Other than that, some have really spoken up about how bad the acting was in this movie. What? Its not Saving Private Ryan, its a sports movie driven mainly by teens and twenty somethings. The two actors Mike Vogel and Steve Howey do a good job playing brothers trying to survive in the sport of supercross. There love interest are equally appealing. It is a fun movie a couple of things left you scratching your head like what happened to the Carlyles father? I will chalk it up to again, bad editing. This movie is on par with its predecessor Winners take all , an equally entertaining supercross flick. Fun if you are young and into the sport. Bad if you are an old man watching it with your young kids or real hardcore supercross fan.

This film is about two brothers who are talented in motorcycle racing. They enter the world of professional Supercross racing, unleashing a new chapter in their lives.

"Supercross" may be an entertaining film, with plentiful of youthful actors and actresses, much speed and engine noises. However, I think it is limited by the fact that the plot is weak and poorly developed. There are a lot of motorcycle scenes, but it lacks the intensity and energy found in other racing films such as "The Fast and the Furious".

"Supercross" is likely to appeal exclusively to fans of this sport. Other people are unlikely to find it engaging or thrilling.

Supercross is a movie you know. Everyone here has seen countless movies just like this before. Nothing new, however, does not necessarily mean nothing gained.

The motocross action in this is superb, and even though I'd never heard of the director (or in the case of the action perhaps the second unit director) I felt the motocross parts of the film were more than well done and well filmed. So for motocross fans, you will get some distinctive motocross action to consume lovingly.

The acting doesn't fare as well, but what do you expect? I'ts called Supercross: The movie, stars a bunch of unknowns (the two most well known are Robert Patrick in a small supporting role, and either Mike Vogel of Grind/Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame or Sohpia Bush of One Tree Hill.)While the acting doesn't necessitate awards, should it? The audience for this is not going to care as much about the acting ability as much as the ability of the movie to entertain, and it does. It's fun. Enough said.

I read a review that compared the plot to The Karate Kid, and while I could see the similarities, there are deviances; but the film itself does borrow from other sports destiny films and when you think about it...it has too. There is nothing but cliché left in this genre. So just sit back and enjoy a good time and shut your brain off. Wait for DVD if you aren't a motocross fan.

p.s. my friend saw the preview for this and his literal quote was "I'd rent that just for the hot chicks." There ya go boys.

To the critic who exited the theater halfway through the movie, "You really missed it."

"Supercross, The Movie" racing photography at the Las Vegas Chammpionship event is the best sporting cinematography of any motion picture that I have ever seen. Super vivid and intense plastic.

Is there any better quality sports film production than later stages of "Supercross, The Movie" racing footage? Extreme close-ups, sudden slow-mo, chrome, other digital effects, aerial jumps and tight action shots are framed with excellent form detail and clarity.

The Director made some mistakes. He could have used Hollywood draw like Aaron Carter, and Sophia Bush for more than only quick supporting shots. He could have included a lot more Supercross racers, and expanded on character development. He could have made more of a total movie, and it would have been interesting for other racers to have some lines.

The camera work in the beginning of "Supercross, The Movie" is inconsistent at best. The digital sound is consistently excellent.

I liked the audio effects during the event races. The exaggerated sound is in keeping with the New York Film School style and look of the better half of the film. I even liked the framing cut aways. Not to many film makers have the courage to do something that far out of the generic mainstream.

Granted, several of the dramatic (or lack there of) scenes needed to be re-done. It is like they began the project with a total lack of organization, and filmed only one take.

Even so, the "SoCal" "seventies lifestyle" approach of what little character development there is found its mark. The storyline is fine, it is just that there is such a lack of fine tuning.

The good parts of the film were so extra over the top that they made the beginning more than survivable.

I hope the next time around they keep the excellent sight and sound quality of the final racing events, and put together better Directorship of the back-in-time lifestyle dramatic intention

Out of all the reviews I've read, a ton of people HATED Supercross so I guess I'm 1 of the very few who actually enjoyed it.I think it was a pretty good movie.I wouldn't watch it again anytime soon but I could see myself watching it again in another couple years.The story has been done a million times before but this time the story is set in the world of motorcross.It has enough going for it that it should keep you entertained for 1 hour & 20 minutes & if you're not entertained, the little 1's will most definitely be, if you have little 1's.I don't understand why it got so much hate.It's not going to win any awards but in my opinion, it was a pretty decent movie.To each their own, you like what you like & hate what you hate.If somebody asked if Supercross was worth watching, I'd have to say yes, I'd give it a shot.I don't know if you'd like it but I most definitely did