Escape to the Movies: Fast Five

[OutforEC]

Sorry but Bob gets paid for this so he is a professional critic and therefore should be judged as one.

And this is where I believe the problem is. He is paid to be a professional critic, which is what he's doing. He's giving his critique on movies, which is what he's paid to do. You're misinterpreting the word 'critic', even after I posted definitions.

"...In the Fast and the Furious universe, being reasonably good at driving an import car suddenly turns you into an unstoppable adamantium-boned ninja capable of outrunning, outfighting and outshooting an entire army."

Fair point but it's called suspension of disbelief, Bob had it when he watched Scott Pilgrimm so why not now. You could say that Pilgrimm was less realistic and purposly stylistic but how far down that rabit hole can we go when we have to quantify how realistic one film is over another, I'd argue that this film is just as intentionaly unrealistic as Pilgrimm I just think that in Bob's mind it just comes down to one being geek culture and the other for so called 'douchebags'.

"Just another mediocre, uninspired action sequel..."

I don't think it was. It had a solid story that moved the plot of the series forward building on the original and adding new plot threads, but I can't argue that this is an invalid citique I just disagree with it.

I return to the old example of the Expendables vs Pirannha reviews Bob comes off as a massive hypocrite judging one film to have no merit because it is a dumb action film to judging another to be great because it is a dumb action film (or in Pirannhas case a dumb horror film with tits as he points out).

The big difference is that Scott Pilgrim and Pirannha aren't taking themselves nearly as seriously as Fast5 and The Expendables. And if you're seriously comparing The Expendables to Pirannha on artistic merit, then that just shows how truly bad the Expendables was to begin with.

On a side note, I've watched the Fast5 critique a few times, and I don't believe Bob ever called his audience douchebags. His 'Avengers for douchebags', to me, refers to the people that make up the group, not the people who make up the audience. I think people are just trying to defend a movie that they enjoy, which is well within their rights, but in doing so they're looking for any little thing to take offense at instead of taking the review as one person's opinion on what he thought was a sub-par flick.

 

[sune-ku]

Hmm, well I actually quite enjoyed it - sure it wasn't brilliant and was more than a little ridiculous but I think that Movie Bob needs to learn to restrict his criticism to the film and not its audience.

Also I'd just like to point out:
Metacritic score: 69% - which is much higher than average
IMDB score: 7.9 - again, pretty high for an action flick

This isn't as bad a film as he's making out.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

Why shit on a movie that you don't even like Bob. I mean u said it, YOUR NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE, so why the fuck do you even review it../rage

That bit of frustration aside though I feel its worth pointing out that I watch Bob's reviews first and foremost for entertainment and 2ndly as a gauge for wether or not I should go pay to see a movie.(and thats if he's reviewed one that Im keen on that is) And also that A) I was 12 in 02 and B) even including Tokyo drift I'd say I've enjoyed the series

 

[Deathninja19]

Sorry but Bob gets paid for this so he is a professional critic and therefore should be judged as one.

And this is where I believe the problem is. He is paid to be a professional critic, which is what he's doing. He's giving his critique on movies, which is what he's paid to do. You're misinterpreting the word 'critic', even after I posted definitions.

"...In the Fast and the Furious universe, being reasonably good at driving an import car suddenly turns you into an unstoppable adamantium-boned ninja capable of outrunning, outfighting and outshooting an entire army."

Fair point but it's called suspension of disbelief, Bob had it when he watched Scott Pilgrimm so why not now. You could say that Pilgrimm was less realistic and purposly stylistic but how far down that rabit hole can we go when we have to quantify how realistic one film is over another, I'd argue that this film is just as intentionaly unrealistic as Pilgrimm I just think that in Bob's mind it just comes down to one being geek culture and the other for so called 'douchebags'.

"Just another mediocre, uninspired action sequel..."

I don't think it was. It had a solid story that moved the plot of the series forward building on the original and adding new plot threads, but I can't argue that this is an invalid citique I just disagree with it.

I return to the old example of the Expendables vs Pirannha reviews Bob comes off as a massive hypocrite judging one film to have no merit because it is a dumb action film to judging another to be great because it is a dumb action film (or in Pirannhas case a dumb horror film with tits as he points out).

The big difference is that Scott Pilgrim and Pirannha aren't taking themselves nearly as seriously as Fast5 and The Expendables. And if you're seriously comparing The Expendables to Pirannha on artistic merit, then that just shows how truly bad the Expendables was to begin with.

On a side note, I've watched the Fast5 critique a few times, and I don't believe Bob ever called his audience douchebags. His 'Avengers for douchebags', to me, refers to the people that make up the group, not the people who make up the audience. I think people are just trying to defend a movie that they enjoy, which is well within their rights, but in doing so they're looking for any little thing to take offense at instead of taking the review as one person's opinion on what he thought was a sub-par flick.

I understand what a critic is I just think you misunderstand the difference between offering a critque of a piece of media and giving an unqualified opinion.

See I think people forget that Fast and the Furious series never took itself too seriously (apart from maybe the first one) and has an ability to make fun of itself at times which is especially true with this film, the whole law of physics being ignored and the over the topness of this film shows that point. And as for the Expendables I have too much to say on this film to drag that in to this.

Also 'Avengers for douchebags' does mean the audience if not he would have said the Douchebag Avengers or Avengers with douchebags. In terms of grammer for will always mean the targeted audience you can't really argue it's not.

 

[yndsu]

Hmm, well I actually quite enjoyed it - sure it wasn't brilliant and was more than a little ridiculous but I think that Movie Bob needs to learn to restrict his criticism to the film and not its audience.

Also I'd just like to point out:
Metacritic score: 69% - which is much higher than average
IMDB score: 7.9 - again, pretty high for an action flick

This isn't as bad a film as he's making out.

Yeah.
Rodger Ebert one (3 stars) [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/REVIEWS/110429986] He is not part of the target audience, but at least he gives the movie a fair review.

And that is the Rotten Tomatoes one. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_five/]

Also, i went to the cinema today and watched it. And i enjoyed it. The story was not bad, action was great, cars were great, acting was solid enough. All-in-all a solid movie. Not nearly as bad as MovieBob is trying to make it look like.

 

[wibbit]

Fast 5
Saw it
Loved it

Once again movie bob can't get that a movie is just what it is, a movie whose soul purpose is to entertain, if you are entertained then it worked (Fast 5), if not then it did not (Skyline).

movie bob you need to take a break from movies for a while, my wife use to work in a movie store for a bit which meant i saw everything that came out, and in the end it started making me hate almost everything that came out. when my wife stopped working at the store and i stopped seeing every thing that came out i started enjoying movies again.

 

[Angnor]

In what universe is a Cars sequel a good idea? It was easily Pixar's weakest movie, and there's nothing in what you hear of the plot that looks like a good idea. The fear is in grinding down a decent movie the way Dreamworks did with Shrek (3&4 should never have happened...).

Its james bond if he were a car (from what iv heard anyway). Pixars other films would get ruined with sequels, I.E Wall-e his stories done, UP had total closure. Finding Nemo's adventure is done (but you could argue it has room for a sequel), A bugs life story was enttirely told as well.
So yeah they had a choice between cars and at a push find nemo, i think its a better choice because its more adaptable (plus nader is AWESOME)

It's Mater. (Like Toe-mater without the toe...)
You miss the point. Why a sequel to any of them? Just because it's the best choice for a sequel doesn't mean it's a good idea.

 

[OutforEC]

I understand what a critic is I just think you misunderstand the difference between offering a critque of a piece of media and giving an unqualified opinion.

Unqualified? If you're seen the movie, you're qualified to give an opinion. I haven't seen the movie, therefore I don't give you my opinion since it would be unqualified. Bob has seen the movie, you have[/] seen the movie, therefore you're both qualified to give your opinions. His has absolutely no more weight than yours does, it just happens to reach a wider audience.

See I think people forget that Fast and the Furious series never took itself too seriously (apart from maybe the first one) and has an ability to make fun of itself at times which is especially true with this film, the whole law of physics being ignored and the over the topness of this film shows that point. And as for the Expendables I have too much to say on this film to drag that in to this.

The first one you've already commented on, and the only other one I've seen is Tokyo Drift. Perhaps you aren't taking it too seriously (which is smart on your part) but the filmmakers definitely did, even going so far as to hire Keiichi Tsuchiya as stunt coordinator, as well as giving him a small cameo part.

Also 'Avengers for douchebags' does mean the audience if not he would have said the Douchebag Avengers or Avengers with douchebags. In terms of grammer for will always mean the targeted audience you can't really argue it's not.

The X-Men is a supergroup for mutants. The Avengers is a supergroup for douchebags.

 

[OutforEC]

Never was much into the Fast and the Furious film series anyways. My cousin is, but I just don't see what's so good about these films to some people. Like Bob said, it's probably because Vin Dissel's character in the films comes across as the quintessential model for wannabe white gangsta boys.

Anyways, my thought though is this...

"Be here next week on MovieBob's, Escape to the Movies, to see if he has a review for Thor!"

PLEASE DON'T SUCK! PLEASE DON'T SUCK! PLEASE DON'T SUCK!

Really hoping the film will be good. Keeping myself from looking at Wikipedia or any other websites that might spoil the film for me.

Apparently it is getting good reviews from the screenings. Here's hoping!

 

[Hachura]

This entire movie was like a 2-hr version of that Rio mission from MW2.

 

[Srdjan Tanaskovic]

1. That's my point, they're using CGI to create obviously impossible and cartoonish effects rather than attempting a passable counterfeit of reality. I find this interesting, others may disagree. Visual style is, after all, a matter of preference. I would not, therefore, say that the CGI is "bad" because it looks exactly how they wanted it to, but that doesn't mean other people need to like it.

Urgh you do not get my point

CGI can look impossible and cartoonish but it can still look good. Look at Tron Legacy or Thor. I want to say that the CGI is bad

 

[Umenrakh]

I heard the word 'bloody' as well as the word 'drawing' pronounced as 'drawring', what's with the britishing?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Hmm, well I actually quite enjoyed it - sure it wasn't brilliant and was more than a little ridiculous but I think that Movie Bob needs to learn to restrict his criticism to the film and not its audience.

Also I'd just like to point out:
Metacritic score: 69% - which is much higher than average
IMDB score: 7.9 - again, pretty high for an action flick

This isn't as bad a film as he's making out.

Yeah.
Rodger Ebert one (3 stars) [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/REVIEWS/110429986] He is not part of the target audience, but at least he gives the movie a fair review.

And that is the Rotten Tomatoes one. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_five/]

Also, i went to the cinema today and watched it. And i enjoyed it. The story was not bad, action was great, cars were great, acting was solid enough. All-in-all a solid movie. Not nearly as bad as MovieBob is trying to make it look like.

On top of the 79% positive reviews that RT has tallied, it's also worth considering the demographic breakdown just posted in their weekend box office review.

"... the adrenaline-pumping actioner played to an audience that was 56% male, 52% under 25, and 65% non-Caucasian. Overseas, Fast Five was a big ticket item too and grossed an estimated $45.3M from just 14 markets boosting the international total to $81.4M and the global gross to $165M with much more to come."

Hmmm... young and largely male, as expected, but only 35% of the audience were the supposed white douchebag wannabes that Bob was sure were the only audience for this movie? And that large of a reception by an international audience as well? Looks like Bob sure called this one.. or not so much.

 

[Deathninja19]

I understand what a critic is I just think you misunderstand the difference between offering a critque of a piece of media and giving an unqualified opinion.

Unqualified? If you're seen the movie, you're qualified to give an opinion. I haven't seen the movie, therefore I don't give you my opinion since it would be unqualified. Bob has seen the movie, you have[/] seen the movie, therefore you're both qualified to give your opinions. His has absolutely no more weight than yours does, it just happens to reach a wider audience.

See I think people forget that Fast and the Furious series never took itself too seriously (apart from maybe the first one) and has an ability to make fun of itself at times which is especially true with this film, the whole law of physics being ignored and the over the topness of this film shows that point. And as for the Expendables I have too much to say on this film to drag that in to this.

The first one you've already commented on, and the only other one I've seen is Tokyo Drift. Perhaps you aren't taking it too seriously (which is smart on your part) but the filmmakers definitely did, even going so far as to hire Keiichi Tsuchiya as stunt coordinator, as well as giving him a small cameo part.

Also 'Avengers for douchebags' does mean the audience if not he would have said the Douchebag Avengers or Avengers with douchebags. In terms of grammer for will always mean the targeted audience you can't really argue it's not.

The X-Men is a supergroup for mutants. The Avengers is a supergroup for douchebags.

Sorry you misunderstood how I used qualify, I used it in the sense of giving an example as in;

Make (a statement or assertion) less absolute; add reservations to

* - she felt obliged to qualify her first short answer

I think you also admit to not seeing the films I am debating so it's hard to put through my point to you but the fast and furious never was above itself to give a little wink to the audience they know they're making popcorn films and they enjoy doing it. Also if you do see this film the way physics get violated on a regular basis and the occasionally suprisingly funny jokes should show that they are hardly making a serious gritty film. And I have no idea who Keiichi Tsuchiya is but I can't see why hiring someone would change the intentions of a filmaker or make a film any more serious.

And come on you know he was aiming the douchebag line at the targeted audience you're clutching at straws here on that point.

 

[yndsu]

Hmm, well I actually quite enjoyed it - sure it wasn't brilliant and was more than a little ridiculous but I think that Movie Bob needs to learn to restrict his criticism to the film and not its audience.

Also I'd just like to point out:
Metacritic score: 69% - which is much higher than average
IMDB score: 7.9 - again, pretty high for an action flick

This isn't as bad a film as he's making out.

Yeah.
Rodger Ebert one (3 stars) [http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110428/REVIEWS/110429986] He is not part of the target audience, but at least he gives the movie a fair review.

And that is the Rotten Tomatoes one. [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_five/]

Also, i went to the cinema today and watched it. And i enjoyed it. The story was not bad, action was great, cars were great, acting was solid enough. All-in-all a solid movie. Not nearly as bad as MovieBob is trying to make it look like.

On top of the 79% positive reviews that RT has tallied, it's also worth considering the demographic breakdown just posted in their weekend box office review.

"... the adrenaline-pumping actioner played to an audience that was 56% male, 52% under 25, and 65% non-Caucasian. Overseas, Fast Five was a big ticket item too and grossed an estimated $45.3M from just 14 markets boosting the international total to $81.4M and the global gross to $165M with much more to come."

Hmmm... young and largely male, as expected, but only 35% of the audience were the supposed white douchebag wannabes that Bob was sure were the only audience for this movie? And that large of a reception by an international audience as well? Looks like Bob sure called this one.. or not so much.

Well, to be honest. A lot of the people who go to watch the movie are douchebags. Just they might be Asian (i mean Indian, there were a LOT of them in teh cinema when i saw the fourth movie in the series). Though when i went to see the movie yesterday there were mostly couples watching it. And i can assure you, they were NOT douchebags. Otherwise they would have been talking loud and being obnoxious, what they were not.

 

[JenSeven]

Once again movie bob can't get that a movie is just what it is, a movie whose soul purpose is to entertain, if you are entertained then it worked (Fast 5), if not then it did not (Skyline).

The problem with this is what you call Entertainment.
For me an entertaining movie is one that makes me think and not one that tries to amaze me with things blowing up in unrealistic ways, but one that tries to amaze me with great story telling, good acting or something that broads my ideas.

I'm much more into movies like The Big Lebowski, Fracture, Remains Of The Day and O Brother Where Art Thou, and a lot less into action movies that seem to drive almost completely on the special effects.
Sure, Fast5 may be a solid movie, but replace all the cars with Volvo's, and remove all the explosions and action scenes, and you'll be stuck with a much less enjoyable movie.

So, what do I enjoy in a movie?
Something that can stand on the plot alone, and doesn't need action scenes and special effects to make it more entertaining, or to distract from a badly thrown together rip-off of a story.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

It's a real pity Vin Diesel's career didn't take of like it should have; you know, after Saving Private Ryan, The Iron Giant and Pitch Black...

I would love to see him in a Zack Snyder flick or something along those lines.

He has the acting ability of a lawn chair with a missing leg.

Wow, that statement made no sense what so ever.

And if you were trying to imply that he is a bad actor: big whoop. Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a good actor? Not exactly, but if I'm not mistaking, he's a freakin' icon and has received quite some kudos for his work in the Terminator movies.

I personally liked the Richard B. Riddick character Vin Diesel played in Pitch Black. For certain types of characters, having style is enough. Not every role requires a Tom Hanks level of acting.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

1. That's my point, they're using CGI to create obviously impossible and cartoonish effects rather than attempting a passable counterfeit of reality. I find this interesting, others may disagree. Visual style is, after all, a matter of preference. I would not, therefore, say that the CGI is "bad" because it looks exactly how they wanted it to, but that doesn't mean other people need to like it.

Urgh you do not get my point

CGI can look impossible and cartoonish but it can still look good. Look at Tron Legacy or Thor. I want to say that the CGI is bad

My point is that it's nothing like either of those examples. Tron and Thor have ridiculous things in them, but those things are still rendered in a pseudo-realistic style. Speed Racer has speed lines and checker boards and all sorts of abstract craziness popping up all over the place. It's trying to be as deliberately fake as possible (I f you look up how much it cost and the team that worked on it, it should become immediately apparent that it could have tried to look real if it wanted to). This is the modern equivalent of the drawn in comic book sound effects in the Adam West Batman movie, and that's what it's supposed to be. Again, I understand why you don't like it, but I don't think it's badly executed. As someone who always notices "good" CGI for what it is and gets annoyed by it, I actually much prefer this approach, which utilizes the blatant artificiality to create the atmosphere and world of the film rather than trying to hide it.

 

[Cosplay Horatio]

I watched the first Fast & The Furious film because I found out that Jordana Brewster has the exact same birthday as me and I thought it would be cool but I was not happy by the end of the film. I didn't intend to watch the 2nd or 3rd fast and furious films but my brother rented them and it was the same film with different characters and poor James Remar. He's my favorite of The Warriors and he's in the second one taking flak for the crappy franchise. Then they did the 4th and now the fifth which I will never watch even though Jordana Brewster is back. As for the future car films to be watched I'm sure you'll have a better time watching Cars 2 than dark of the moon.