The most surprisingly fantastic film of the summer thus far

[Phy]

Speed Racer.

I'm not kidding.

http://images.apple.com/moviesxml/s/wb/posters/speedracer_l200804151204.jpg

Iron Man was great, but we sort of knew it might be, and it is the unquestioned king of the summer blockbusters thus far. But for those of us paying attention, that's not a surprise. The real surprise is how great Speed Racer is.

It's live action anime. It's a gearhead story for grown up kids. It's all about family values and doing the right thing and a gifted young man who's flat-out crazy about his older brother, who... but no, that's spoiler material.

Suffice it to say, this is everything I hoped it would be, and nothing I'd expected.

The racing scenes are silly, but I mean that as a compliment. This isn't realistic racing, it is the Speed Racer anime drawn large and revved up to 11. It is a strong but fallible family straight out of my childhood, and the family structure is the foundation this film is built upon. The Speed / Trixie relationship strikes just the right note, and Mom and Pops Racer are pitch-perfect.

But the real wow here is how well the Wachowskis ratchet up the tension with great baddies, cheerfully cheesy humor, and a palette that includes all the colors of the rainbow so oversaturated it's like visual cotton candy, impossible colors that still taste amazing.

I found myself extremely cynical about this film going in, but the early race between Speed and the ghost of his brother, Speed racing himself, was so thrilling and so perfect that I set aside all my cynicism and just went along for the ride.

I kept waiting for a false note; too much sexuality from Speed and Trixie, too little emphasis on family values, too little attention to characterization and story, but no - the Wachowski Bros navigated tricky waters to deliver a pitch-perfect family friendly adventure where the bad guys seem so very invulnerable, and the contributions of one impressionable young man hardly seem up to the task.

I found myself amused by the film, then charmed by the film, then surprised by the film, and then flat-out captivated by the film.

This is a fast, fun, fantastic film. I know Jim Emerson gave it only one and a half stars. I think he's too grown up to remember how fun a great popcorn film can be, and this film is actually about a great many things I really care about; loyalty, family, love, ingenuity, dogged determination, righteousness. The Wachowskis wowed with V for Vendetta, and they've done it again with Speed Racer.

I know hardly anyone is seeing this movie, and that's a crying shame. This is everything I like about film - an audacious vision, phenomenal visuals, smart writing, no pandering to the powers-that-be, the belief that one good man can change the world, and the realization that one good man needs one great family.

Harry Knowles loves it, too:
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/36695

Speed Racer

SPEED RACER FACTS
Based on the classic children's cartoon, Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is a young hotshot race-car driver who has a good support team behind him, including his mom (Susan Sarandon), dad (John Goodman) and girlfriend, Trixie (Christina Ricci). With his powerful race-winning Mach 5 vehicle, Speed angers a ruthless mogul (Roger Allam) who is out to control the world of professional racing by "fixing" the competitions. Teaming up with the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox), Speed attempts to win the Crucible cross-country rally and keep the sport he loves honest.

Hurtling down the track, careening around, over and through the competition, Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is a natural behind the wheel. Born to race cars, Speed is aggressive, instinctive and, most of all, fearless. His only real competition is the memory of the brother he idolized-the legendary Rex Racer, whose death in a race has left behind a legacy that Speed is driven to fulfill. Speed is loyal to the family racing business, led by his father, Pops Racer (John Goodman), the designer of Speed’s thundering Mach 5. When Speed turns down a lucrative and tempting offer from Royalton Industries, he not only infuriates the company’s maniacal owner (Roger Allam) but uncovers a terrible secret-some of the biggest races are being fixed by a handful of ruthless moguls who manipulate the top drivers to boost profits. If Speed won’t drive for Royalton, Royalton will see to it that the Mach 5 never crosses another finish line. The only way for Speed to save his family’s business and the sport he loves is to beat Royalton at his own game. With the support of his family and his loyal girlfriend, Trixie (Christina Ricci), Speed teams with his one-time rival-the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox)-to win the race that had taken his brother’s life: the death-defying, cross-country rally known as The Crucible.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/speedracer/trailer3/large.html

[Xenia]

Go Speed Racer gooooo! I loved it when I was a kid. I may have to go see it :). Wonderfully written review too by the way...

[lynnmosher]

Great job, Phy! You should have been paid for that one! Will have to see it. Thanks for the review.

[ProfessorAlan]

I was so stoked for this, but severely disappointed. I felt like I spent 2+ houtrs wathcing someone else play a video game. The box office has been disastrous, as well, so maybe word got out. Here are parts of Joe Morgenstern's commentary (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121098342861200259.html?mod=weekend_journal_prim ary_hs) (a week after he wrote his review) on the film from the weekend's Wall Street Journal. I ahve excerpted some below, which reflect my opinions. I
---------------------------
Kids 1, Chaos 0
Failure of Incoherent,
Hyped 'Speed Racer'
Is Good Omen for Films

The spectacular failure of "Speed Racer" shouldn't be an occasion for gloating -- it's too hard to make a movie, even a bad one -- but the tally from last weekend's box office certainly comes as interesting news for anyone who cares about kids' entertainment.

The movie in question, written and directed by the creators of "The Matrix," took aim at young audiences with computer-generated race car sequences of relentless intensity and incomparable incoherence. As I watched this hugely expensive and heavily promoted ode to overstimulation in the darkness of a studio screening room, I found myself thinking darker thoughts about the prospect of it being a hit, or, worse still, proving to be the Next Big Thing.

More than a few prominent critics hailed it as such. One of them wrote: "If you watch the film overwhelmed by the assault of seductive visual information and wonder what you're seeing, here's the happy answer: the future of movies."

A happier answer came from the audience, which sent "Speed Racer" tumbling down the tubes. The film managed only a third-place showing -- not second place, as its studio originally claimed -- behind "Iron Man" and "What Happens In Vegas" for a paltry opening-weekend take of $18.6 million. {Note that it fell to 4th this weekend, still under $30 million domestic}

That's the good news; chaos isn't a surefire selling tool, not even when the target audience is sensation-hungry kids. Indeed, "Iron Man" can be seen as "Speed Racer's" polar opposite -- a blockbuster that speeds along stylishly, and changes pace with dramatic interludes that give its audience credit for curiosity and intelligence.

In my review of "Speed Racer" I said that if the movie's target audience turned out in vast numbers we'd be looking at child endangerment on a global scale. It was a joke line, but I meant it. Kids need inoculation against media-generated chaos.

[Phy]

I wouldn't call this a 'kids' film. Maybe YA.

I know people who didn't like The Incredibles because they were expecting another Little Nemo. I don't get that. They're completely different films with a completely different audience.

Everybody won't 'get' this film. I'm ok with that. I'm astonished that I was one of the ones who do 'get' it.

[ProfessorAlan]

So my not liking it must be because I didn't "get" it? Is there a chance that I "got" and yet still didn't enjoy it?

[Phy]

So my not liking it must be because I didn't "get" it? Is there a chance that I "got" and yet still didn't enjoy it?

I've been waiting all day to post this... ;)

It's a lively question. I love semantic distinctions. In that light, I'm going to make a philosophical argument that one might agree with or not. I'm not saying this is truth, merely what I'm thinking at this moment. [ED. ...or at least what I was thinking ten hours ago when I first read the post via Gmail, heh.]

The short answer is, if you didn't fully enjoy a film, you didn't get it.

The longer answer involves a definition of terms:
Not to be too coy, but I think there is a distinction to be made here. I think there's a difference between understanding a film and getting it.

The first is a cerebral thing. The second is a heart thing. More than that, it's a mystical union of heart and mind and something indefinable that is innate and not trainable. You either grok or you don't. It's an immediate thing, and it's permanent. I get Abbot and Costello. I'll never get the Three Stooges.

I think getting a film means you understood it with your head and you enjoyed it to the very core of your being. If you didn't enjoy it, by my definition, you didn't really get it, there's a disconnect between your experience and the optimal experience. To me, really getting a film involves the coming together of both the head and the heart into a perfect tuning fork pitch of total comprehension and satisfaction.

For example, I'm a space opera fan and a Star Wars nut. But while I 'got' Star Wars episodes 4/5/6, I didn't 'get' Ep. 1/2/3. There was a fundamental disconnect that prevented me, a space opera nut and Star Wars fan, from fully grokking the prequel movies. I understood them just fine, but something in the execution, the direction, something, prevented me from 'getting' them. [ED: A friend wrote in today to tell me that there is no way anyone could 'get' Ep. 1 - 3, but my point is that there's always somebody who will 'get' something, and I just didn't get that trilogy. I can live with that.

So while I was thinking about what it takes to really 'get' something, I thought of my favorite example of the disconnect between merely cerebral understanding and truly getting something. I'll tie this argument back to Christianity itself. There are those who understand it with their heads, but they've never made the additional leap of faith, embracing it with their hearts, their souls, their very being. They understand it clinically--or they think they do--but they don't 'get' it, not really. It is a reality that you can't just understand. It's something...more, something...else.

I think we all know somebody like this, and it's sad. We can explain it until we're blue in the face, but ultimately, whether somebody really /gets/ Christ--or Speed Racer, and believe me, I've never thought I'd mention the two in the same sentence, rotfl--depends on something more than mere understanding. You either get it or you don't.

The primary difference with salvation is the intervention of the Spirit. Speed Racer has no such assistance to get one over the hump. ;)

[ProfessorAlan]

I guess maybe the semantics hold up in a technical sense (maybe, just maybe they do), but for practical purposes and in everyday converstion, the phrase "you didn't get it" has a dismissive and mildly insulting air to it, at least to my ears. Hence my snippy reply.

[Phy]

I guess maybe the semantics hold up in a technical sense (maybe, just maybe they do), but for practical purposes and in everyday converstion, the phrase "you didn't get it" has a dismissive and mildly insulting air to it, at least to my ears. Hence my snippy reply.

I willingly apologize for any dismissive and mildly insulting air to the phrase, and humbly ask for an alternative that is neither of those things, so I may employ that in the future, for I earnestly desire not to offend you in any way. I am forthright to a fault, and know that about myself.

[ProfessorAlan]

A little offense is OK, between friends. I also apologize for my snippiness.

[Phy]

Ok, np. :)