Escape to the Movies: Fast Five

[Nurb]

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.

Or does it make perfect sense?

 

[SandroTheMaster]

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.

That didn't sound harsh. That sounded extremely and utterly douchy. Except the "Holier than thou" kind of douche.

Yes, great movies are all about the plot and a good story. But not all movies should be about that. There's merit to movies that pull off incredible visuals, awesome stunts (hey, at least Fast 5 wasn't like Fast 2 or the Taxi remake, as in, it actually had real cars in it), shocking imagery, idealized designs and so on and so forth. There's an audience for everything, but if you want to just keep your nose higher than cocaine and only consider one kind of storytelling to be a movie... frankly you'll be missing a lot.

Not to mention that many of those supposedly high-brow movies are actually just the writer getting lost and hoping the audience just don't notice because they think it was just supposed to be ambiguous.

 

[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.

Or does it make perfect sense?

...

Sure.
Of course it does.
Totally makes sense.

Run along now.

 

[Nurb]

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.

Or does it make perfect sense?

...

Sure.
Of course it does.
Totally makes sense.

Run along now.

Apology Accepted.

 

[Riesel87]

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.[/quo

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.

I must agree with Deathninja19 on these issues. I think Bob is completely wrong here in all areas.

Firstly he compares this film to Torque a motorcycle Fast & Furious lite, which he claims has more artistic merit, even though they are cut form the same cloth, have the same audience which he chastises so bitterly. It smacks of a hypocritic that wants to have his cake and eat it. You cannot lambast one film for being of an unrealistic nature to then applaud another for the exact same reason.

As a paid critic you have a duty to ciritque a film based on non-bias criteria which takes into account the intended viewing audience. Ofcourse your personal opinion is required as that is what makes it your personal review, but you have a responsibility to be magnanimous enough to appreciate that not everybody likes what you like, and thusly should not be chastised for such.

To call the audience douchebags for enjoying the film, is just ignorant. He clearly has the target audience completely wrong. Despite this being Rated 18, the film will be witnessed and enjoyed by familys with children, to the elderly. A lot of people that will enjoy the Vin/rock fight very well will be children as well as adults, so his idea of a jock fueled testosterone fest as a target audience is simply wrong and shows his short sightedness when it comes to this hap hazard piece "professional" journalism.

I think you personally are not in an informed position to comment on the film makers intentions on how serious he takes these films, as you admit to not having seen most of the series. That means the context and tone of the series really is lost on you, and makes it impossible for anyone to point out the flaws in Bobs review with any chance of it making an impression.

Its clear from all this that Bob has demons in his closet about certain things, and as a professional journalist should not let that enter into his work, as many people will be insulted by his hypocritical bash.

 

[sarahvait]

"Family"

"Loyalty"

"Honor"

"Cars"

"Cars"

"Cars"

"Import Cars"

"Caaaaaaaaaaaaaars"

I laughed my ass off at that.

Man, I lost it at that part. I mean, I like the reviews in general but usually I just chuckle a little. I was guffawing for a full minute after.

 

[StarkillerisDead]

Wow, Bob, I think we can all see the contempt here. Go fuck yourself. You've been getting really, really hyped for the Avengers and Thor, and that's cool, nobody's calling you a pretentious nerdy asshole about it. So don't call us douchebags.
When you compare someone who's only crime is enjoying a film franchise, and someone else who spends half a review mocking the first person as an immature wannabe-gangsta, who's the douchebag, really?

 

[Warachia]

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.

I love this argument because it brings up a very good point: "What do you want in a movie?" If you don't like anything offered, then yes, it won't entertain you, that doesn't stop you from giving an objective opinion (you could see the action so those of you who like a lot of action in your movies but little else will be entertained) but at least you don't call anyone without the same interests as you a douchebag.
Incidently I have no idea why people still watch bob, he's an asshole, this is the first video of his I've seen in a long time and I have to say he is EASILY one of the shittiest reviewers/citics I've ever seen.

 

[escapistraptor]

I lol'd at Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Hmm I see Bob doesn't like to answer emails from his viewers. Wow so much for "Bring it on".

Did you really mean "I am going to make some immature generalizations and when you respond I am going to ignore them"?

OT: I can't wait to see this movie.

 

[Locutus9956]

Bob: I must say, this review was quite amusing, I loved the 'Avengers for douchebags' line in particular

I have one teensy criticism though, please PLEASE, stop using that 'DEEP ECHOEY VOICE EFFECT!!!' It's not dramatic, it doesnt emphasise things it just sounds kinda tacky and for me ruins an otherwise really well done review. I get what you're trying to do but it would work so much better if you just said it, well, as you would say it if you were talking to us normally the sound effects just make it sound rather unprofessional (just my 5 cents), still great review aside from that

 

[Locutus9956]

(just for the record by the way, I dont mean the whole 'cars cars caaaaaaaars' thing. That was funny and though Ive not seen the movie, I daresay pretty accurate, I just mean the digital effects to your voice, seriously, lose them and your reviews will be so much easier on the ear )

 

[azriel2422]

I thought the movie was entertaining, but not riveting by any stretch. I enjoy Vin Diesel and the Rock in action movies, and for that and the car chases (which is what has always carried these movies) it was worth it to see (once lol) imo. That being said, I've only seen one movie that Paul Walker where I mistook him as a real actor (Running Scared). I think seeing this movie in IMAX helped a little too but that could just be me. I am also looking forward to the Transformers movie this summer, I think they will (hopefully) fix the issues with the last one and end on a positive note. Not all movies have to change the world,...sometimes its just nice to escape for a couple hours.

 

[themerrygambit]

You know what, Bob? Couldn't you try to review movies without ridiculing the film's target audience. Heck, not only ridiculing, but also insulting anyone who watches it. It's getting tiring. I might watch Fast Five. Does that make me a terrible douchebag?

I concur good sir. He's just starting to sound like a bitter social outcast at this point.

 

[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.[/quo

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.

I must agree with Deathninja19 on these issues. I think Bob is completely wrong here in all areas.

Firstly he compares this film to Torque a motorcycle Fast & Furious lite, which he claims has more artistic merit, even though they are cut form the same cloth, have the same audience which he chastises so bitterly. It smacks of a hypocritic that wants to have his cake and eat it. You cannot lambast one film for being of an unrealistic nature to then applaud another for the exact same reason.

As a paid critic you have a duty to ciritque a film based on non-bias criteria which takes into account the intended viewing audience. Ofcourse your personal opinion is required as that is what makes it your personal review, but you have a responsibility to be magnanimous enough to appreciate that not everybody likes what you like, and thusly should not be chastised for such.

To call the audience douchebags for enjoying the film, is just ignorant. He clearly has the target audience completely wrong. Despite this being Rated 18, the film will be witnessed and enjoyed by familys with children, to the elderly. A lot of people that will enjoy the Vin/rock fight very well will be children as well as adults, so his idea of a jock fueled testosterone fest as a target audience is simply wrong and shows his short sightedness when it comes to this hap hazard piece "professional" journalism.

I think you personally are not in an informed position to comment on the film makers intentions on how serious he takes these films, as you admit to not having seen most of the series. That means the context and tone of the series really is lost on you, and makes it impossible for anyone to point out the flaws in Bobs review with any chance of it making an impression.

Its clear from all this that Bob has demons in his closet about certain things, and as a professional journalist should not let that enter into his work, as many people will be insulted by his hypocritical bash.

Why thank you Riesel87 it's nice to know I'm not So Alone.

 

[Groundchuck]

Not wanting to quote the above post because of its epicness in length and substance ill just say Hi5.
But as for Bob, he has eluded to the fact he may have been a bit of a nerd through out school and thus would be lead to the assumption that he may also have been picked on by the the same kind of people he seems to think these movies are aimed at, so fair enough that he take shots at a group of people that caused him so much anguish in his past, in fact, well played. I kind of think that Bob is the sort of guy who can't change his own oil, or needs to cal AAA if he gets a flat, and if you are reading this and are a male and can't change a flat then shame on you. To him the car is another way to get to the comic book shop then swing by the dry cleaners to fetch his Larping costume before picking up his friends to go to the woods for some homoerotic nerd fest.... but i could be wrong, and he owns a cherry 69 Chevelle which he hand built from raw metal using just grit and his teeth while he drinks motor oil and pisses gasoline... Although pigeon holing is fun so... yeah I'm going with Gay larping.

 

[caladors]

I think your way to harsh on this.
This is the candy of film.
It's not soild story, it soft porn with car porn.
I don't even like cars or the macho broom broom bullshit they get into.
But here is the thing there candy you can lose yourself in the whole thieves with honour in the world of amazingly good looking women with really fast cars.
It's like trying to look for depth at brand power ad.
It's just the surface don't look deeper there is nothing there.
But unlike the ad if you turn your brain off for awile and stop higher functions you can enjoy a movie for awile.

 

[elplayerj]

I respected you Movie Bob!!! I bet you prefer to watch chick flicks like that "Prom" one... What a bias review.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Even though I have no intention of spending my cash to see this at the theater, I just don't see why every time Bob doesn't like a flick he has to spend so much time trashing the audience that may like it.

Bob doesn't like alpha males (since he was bullied in school) so that every movie that caters to what he considers to be "manly macho jocks" he gets defensive.

This. A reviewer is supposed to at least PRETEND to be objective, but he went on to shit all over the movie and make fun of people that like it. That just seems very petty and quite douchebaggish. That being said, I saw it, didn't much care for it, except for the brazilian cop chick, but it was enjoyable because I went with a friend and everytime the rock appeared on screen we would start screaming out Rock quotes and whatnot.

 

[wibbit]

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.

you missed my point
i used the 2 movies listed in my post as examples because one entertained me and one did not. if you don't agree with me on whether the titles listed did so for you that is fine, but movie bob seems to think we should all be good little communist bastards and only like what he likes. which was my point i was trying to display.

p.s. i liked o brother where art thou but it you removed the music and comedy from it your left with a much less enjoyable movie as well.