Speed Kills

In the first 12 minutes I was done. A movie about the history of powerboats? Cool I will watch. So it's starts in the 1969 and Travolta looks out at the sea while talking to his new lawyer. There are two boats racing, one has a mid 2000s Mercury 135 the other has a early 2000s Mariner 75. Then he walks up to a dock and I see a sea of modern 4 stroke outboards in the 1960! Amazing. He gets on a boat and the guy tells him it has twin 327 chevys, yet it only has exhaust for one motor and a throttle for one motor. When he pulls it into his driveway you can see the single v drive.

People don't make car movies from the past and show modern cars, don't make a movie from the past and show modern outboards.

Stupid.

Where to start? I have my boat, so I know a thing or two, I lived in Miami in the 90s, so I kinda get whatever the movie wants to convey, Then I see Travolta falling in love with a fiberglass hull with twin V8s, haha. Next to that, the first race scene, with the boat shortcutting through the shallows? hahaha. I like Travolta´s sense of humor. This movie is one of his expensive jokes, and I am still trying to find the punchline. If I can finish watching it...

This film is based on the true story of Don Aronow (changed to Ben Aronoff in this film), of which I've never heard of until after seeing this film. At first I thought "why John Travolta?" but after Googling Donald Aronow, I see the uncanny resemblance.

I'm a fan of films based on true stories, and I enjoyed learning something new, especially about the beginnings of the cigarette boat racing industry.

Where this film failed miserably was in hiring amateur director Jodi Scurfield of whom this is his?/her? first ever film directed. Why? Was Jodi one of the 25+ executive producers significant other or child?

This films editing was one of the worst I've seen in a while. Then there's the writing; you would think at least one of the five writers could have re-read the screenplay and see how hacked it was. The were many jumpy plot issues and omissions. I feel certain scenes needed more relevance to what was happening or how/why they happened.

The 102 min length felt much longer due to the slow pacing contributed by the bad editing and sloppy directing. The SFX during the storm was 1980's technology. The cinematography was adequate, as was the score.

The cast however all provided decent performances, considering the director probably had no input during scenes of their performances. It showed from the flat and unconvincing relationships of Travolta's two wives and children.

I'm disappointed that of the 25+ producers, no one made the effort to hire professional filmmakers to make this film way better. This story had much potential.

I know this film will get bad ratings due to all the negative reasons I've stated above, but oddly enough, I still enjoyed it and liked learning something new and interesting from this film's base of a true story. If you can look past the flaws, you might enjoy it as well. A generous 6/10 from me, only for the base story and the cast's performances.

Actually was intrigued by the idea for the story, not an original one but intriguing, and have nothing against John Travolta, though it has been a while since he has given a good performance or made a good film. No bias or bigotry against him and his personal life and choices have absolutely no bearing on my opinions of his performances and films (that has never been the case for anybody or any film) and never have done.

'Speed Kills' just didn't work on most levels for me and most people it seems, and this is being said with regret not malice. It is another one of those films that is not irredeemably bad and there is always a real conscious effort to see the good in the bad. 'Speed Kills' though is also another film that has its good points far outweighed by the bad things, there is little good here and the flaws are big rather than marginal.

The scenery was quite nice, but that is pretty much the only praise that could be given from personal opinion.

None of the performances work, in general the acting had a very under-rehearsed vibe while Travolta over-compensates in his role with some off-putting facial expressions that border on unintentionally funny. None of the characters are remotely interesting, little more than undeveloped stereotypes with little personality, very flat character relationships, no interesting or distinct character traits and irritating ways of behaving and decision-making. The direction felt practically non-existent.

Other than the scenery, the production values lack slickness and look rather drab and like they were made in haste. A feeling most betrayed by some very haphazard editing that lacks any kind of organisation. The soundtrack is unmemorable at best and the script is so cheesy watching it with a straight face is impossible and that is when it is comprehensible.

From a story, structure and pace point of view, 'Speed Kills' is a mess. There is no excitement, let alone tension or suspense whatsoever. Structurally, the story just jumps about and constantly feels like there are parts missing that were meant to be there, so the flow is always choppy. And the pace is very pedestrian with many parts dragging, making a film that wasn't that long feel twice as long to the extent it felt there was nowhere near enough story to sustain the length.

All in all, the scenery aside a poorly done film. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I wonder what was in their minds when they decided to make this movie. A lot of money spent, endless hours of work.This movie has on its cast famous actors with huge revenues,who have already played in very good movies or TV series.What is the reason for this movie? I made an effort to see it by the end. I'm curious if John Travolta had the patience to watch it all the way. I can say that the only thing that this movie excels on is the banality.That is not art.