Speed Racer

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 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.

As a child Speed Racer not only had his name as a developmental factor in his passion for motor racing, but also the influence of his older brother and famous driver Rex Racer. However when Rex is revealed as corrupt he is thrown from the sport and is eventually killed in a deadly cross-country race – devastating his family but yet purring Speed on to continue his brother's legacy, believing him to have been wrongly accused. As an adult he appears to have the racing world at his feet, with only the limited resources of his father's company as a constraint. An offer from one of the largest firms in the sport appears – but Speed soon learns that the sport he loves is not as pure or as clean as it is for him.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film and both me and my girlfriend turned to one another and simply said in unison that Speed Racer "looks awful". Presented as an adult action movie of sorts, it just looked terribly gaudy and nonsensical and I was not surprised when it got a critical mauling on its release in the UK. I watched it recently anyway though and quickly worked out that actually it was meant to be that way and that the marketing department did a terrible job of selling it by presenting it as something that it wasn't. Rather than an action film it is essentially a live action version of a cartoon series (which I have not seen) that is trying to be a cartoon in the same way as Tank Girl tried to be the comic strip even if it wasn't a great film. With Speed Racer it actually works better because it has the budget and the consistency across the film to just about carry the style. Substance-wise it must be said that there is not enough going on to really carry a film that is over two hours long and a lot of stuff could have been cut back some but this isn't really a film that is about substance. Some have said it is good for children and I do agree but again this makes me wonder why it ran as long as it did.

Anyway, the film it is all about the visual design and in this regard the film is quite impressive IF you keep in mind that it is deliberately the way that it is and that the gaudy colours and excessive special effects are all part of it and not just a sign of the Wachowski brothers going out of their minds. Style does not make a film brilliant though and indeed Speed Racer is still an acquired taste – if you can get into the comic book style then it just about works but personally I do not agree with those praising it to the high heavens. Technically yes, it is really good and I particularly like the visual awareness that built it, for example the editing and overlaying of images in the style of a comic book. The cast are not any good in a traditional sense but they do play up the hyper comic style performances required. Hirsch is a bit stiff but leads the film well, while Fox has already shown he likes style without a lot of substance and is equally sturdy. The supporting cast is deep in faces, all of whom pretty much fit with the weird comic book style even if I'm not sure what any single one of them personally gained by being in the film (apart from money of course). Ricci, Goodman, Sarandon, Roundtree and many others all show up and add to the novelty feel of the film.

Speed Racer is not a great film by any means but it certainly did not deserve the panning it generally got. It is important to watch it as a kid's animated cartoon, even if it cost millions and seems silly. In this mind, the visual style and everything else works because it makes sense – however two hours+ is still a tough ask for a film that is all style with very little of substance.

Above everything else, this movie is a visual feast that stays true to the cartoon. I think it is really unfortunate that so many critics are complaining about the visuals in this movie, because I think that they are truly fantastic. I can safely say that I have never seen another movie like this one, and I feel that so many movies are going to try to do what this movie did. A lot of the visuals really are beautiful bursts of color similar to what you find on the busy streets of Tokyo, and this movie is aware of that. It is like they took Shibuya and made it a hundred times as big and colorful. Only someone who has been to Tokyo will know exactly what the Wachowskis were going for in this film. After all, it is based on a Japanese TV show.

The acting is somewhat campy, but can also turn that gear into more serious acting. It can be funny, and then be heartwarming. Lots of the racing sequences are very over the top, but the movie knows it and does it well. The tracks are very creative, and I can only imagine how fun they were to design. If real racing was this exciting, I would watch it all the time. I can understand why this film made the race tracks so crazy, because who would really want to see two hours of regular race tracks with cars going around and around? The sound was also really impressive in this film. The sounds of the race cars were explosive and loud and if you see this movie in a good theater, it will make it that much better. The music is also very fitting and tasteful. Probably the only time I will hear "Freebird" without being annoyed.

Also the politics in this movie were excellent as well. I feel above all the message of this movie is that money corrupts art. This movie portrays Speed as more of an artist than a race car driver. A big corporation wants to sponsor Speed, but Speed knows that corporations are evil and are only looking to make more money. He is very dedicated to his craft, and does not want to sell out. Speed knows that corporations corrupt art, and so does this movie. You will not see one piece of product placement in this whole film.

So overall this movie is very self-aware. It wants to entertain, and it does exactly that. It wants to be different, and it does exactly that. Don't listen to those wimpy critics that didn't like this film because it gave them a headache. Many people said the same thing about Moulin Rogue, and that movie is fantastic too. Critics who complained about there being too much color should have brought a pacifier with them to the movies, because only babies would complain about how this film looks. Race to your theater to see it now.

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.