FORUMS: list search recent posts

Fast & Furious 6

COW Forums : TV & Movie Appreciation

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Scott Roberts
Fast & Furious 6
on May 29, 2013 at 3:24:44 pm

Fast & Furious has now joined the elite group of super sequels that few franchises achieve. It now stands alongside A Nightmare on Elm Street 6: Freddy's Dead, and Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives, in the 'Six Club' with their entry Fast & Furious 6: Letty Resurrected. The only minor difference is that only one of these three films has made $130 million dollars worldwide in its opening weekend. I think it's Freddy's Dead. BUT I'M NOT SURE.

This time around, Dom Toretto and his "family" of criminals are recruited by the government, for some reason, to take out a terrorist who has a SUPER MICROCHIP IN A SUITCASE THAT CAN CAUSE WORLDWIDE DESTRUCTION... even though in retrospect, the navy seals and a couple of stealth airplanes would have done the job just as well. I guess the crew take on the mission to save Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), who I'm pretty sure died in Fast Five but is back now because "Sure, why not?". Now she has mega amnesia and can't remember anything about her old crew or her previous life, but she retained all of her awesome driving skillz and hand-to-hand combat abilities. Convenient amnesia is the BEST amnesia.

UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS MOMENT #1: While driving probably 90 MPH in opposite directions, Dom somehow manages to steer his car and accelerate the gas pedal while hanging 75% of his body out of the window while making the split second decision to jump 100 feet and tackle another character mid-air on a bridge at the perfect time to smash them both into the windshield of a car in order to AVOID injury. He didn't get a single scrape on his skin and his white shirt remained cleaner than when he opened it from the original packaging.

It's easy to forget that the main character of this film is played by a guy named Mark Sinclair; who intentionally shaved his head bald, changed his name to Vin Diesel, and moved to Hollywood with dreams of becoming a big time actor. He barely even acts in this one, with his face frozen in a kind of confused grimace the entire film. The kind of face where you can't tell if he's the stupidest person on the planet, or if he's quietly a genius. Where's that face again? Ah, here it is:



Conversely, the other main star of this film is a guy who called himself The Rock for most of his professional life, then changed his name BACK to Dwayne Johnson (which sounds like a country music singer) in order for people to take him seriously as an actor. I have to say, of all the actors in this movie, Johnson is the one guy who actually seems like he *wants* to be there. That dude can role through lines like nobodies' business. It seems like the director can give him a page of lines and he will read them with maximum charisma and enthusiasm at all times, no matter how ridiculous they may be. It's almost like he appreciates having a role in these niche movies... Meanwhile, the rest of the cast seem bored with the fact they have to do another one of these movies, despite the fact they are widely popular films and are basically keeping most of their relevance in tact (see: Paul Walker, Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson).

UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS MOMENT #2: Near the end of the movie as the villain is getting away, he tries to use his cell phone, but they cut away to a shot of Ludacris typing on a keyboard of a random government computer wildly, like a six-year-old pretending to play businessman on an imaginary computer; followed by saying "Alright, his cell phone is jammed." in the most deadpanned voice possible.

I didn't necessarily despise this movie or anything. I just didn't really like it. But it has some good action scenes. I thought Fast Five was crazier, though, in my opinion. And the action scenes go on so long that I started to get fatigued. And when I get fatigued, I start to think about things I shouldn't, and it takes away from the action scenes. Like, why is an army tank, that is anchored down by a car tied to it, still going faster than the Toretto crew's race cars? Tanks are slow as hell, aren't they? And how long is this runway that the plane at the end is trying to take off from? They are going super fast on it for a solid 15 minutes; is this a 20 mile long runway?

But whatever, it's a well put together movie for what it is. During the slower scenes, they tried to add a lot of comic relief, to which most of the audience laughed at. I got a little sick of Tyrese Gibson's character after a while. He's pretty annoying. These movies have a nice formula that works for them, and I respect that the fans of this franchise love that formula.

Though, I'd still prefer a more nuanced car chase scene than the "have as much happening as possible at once" car scenes I'm seeing here. Comparing the car scenes in The French Connection or Death Proof to the ones in the Fast and Furious movies are like comparing the emotional lightsaber battles between Luke and Vader to the spazzy overchoreographed lightsaber battles with General Grievous and Darth Maul in the Star Wars prequels.

UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS MOMENT #3: It took literally being inside an exploding airplane for Dom's white shirt to get dirt on it. He still, uh, didn't have any scrapes or bruises, though.

Really? My leg gets all scraped up when I rub it against my couch the wrong way. How does he casually walk out of burning airplane wreckage with no problems? Is he human? You know, one reason why the Die Hard movies are great is because by the end of the movie, John McClain always looks like s***. He's hobbling around on one leg while nursing a deep abdominal laceration. He looks like a guy who's been through hell in order to get the job done. He looks like he's potentially able to be defeated. It creates tension for the character and makes the audience actually fear for our protagonist a little bit. Meanwhile, Dom gets shot in the shoulder, jumps out of a moving car, smashes through a windshield, has 15 straight minutes of brutal hand to hand combat, then explodes in an airplane; and he looks and acts exactly like he did when he woke up that morning. So, again, is Dom even human? If he's an alien or a robot, they should just say so, because that would actually add some much-needed depth to the character.

UNINTENTIONALLY HILARIOUS MOMENT #4: In a perfect moment of showing the overall intelligence of the target audience summed up onto one screen full of text; before the credits started they put up a paragraph long disclaimer to the audience along the lines of "These were stunt cars and stunt performers, don't try driving like the people in this movie. It's dangerous. This wasn't real." Really? This would be like putting a slate at the end of Goodfellas saying "These are actors. They used fake bullets. They didn't actually accumulate vast amounts of wealth. They were pretending. Don't commit crimes."

I guess that's a thematic problem with these films. As I've said before, these movies are about a group of super criminals who are all enemies of our country, living in tropical mansions and villas around the world, with access to whatever they want. They are basically criminals without consequence. Even characters that died in the previous movies get to come back to life, somehow, and rejoin the family. It's exactly why they *need* to put that demeaning warning at the end of the movie to not drive like a psycho when you leave the theater. I'm sure there's plenty of knuckleheads who get heavily influenced by these movies in particular because they glorify the "fast" and "furious" lifestyle in the best way possible. If you drive like a hotshot, you'll never get pulled over, or injured when you crash your car THROUGH a building. But what you will get is TONZ OF $$$ AND CONSTANT PARTIES FULL OF WOMEN'S BUTTS. Five movies about being total public menaces, and the entire sixth film isn't about bringing them down, it's about giving them a happy ending. Crime DOES pay in these movies. It pays a lot. CRIME IS AWESOME.

Try watching Goodfellas, Scarface, Reservoir Dogs, Dead Presidents, or Dog Day Afternoon, and tell me how well being a bad guy works for them out in the end.

Listen, I totally get why these movies are so loved. And I understand I'm not in the target demographic. But you could totally make the argument that Fast & Furious movies are just Twilight movies for bros. It's only funny because I'm sure the F&F fans look down on the Twilight people without the least bit of irony that their movies are just as dumb and bland as the vampire films. Hell, there are probably moments in Twilight that are actually more well written than Fast & Furious. "Ride or Die" and "You've gone from Shaggy to Scooby. This is something we don't doo" (what does that even mean?) aren't exactly masterworks of screenwriting. To me (someone who doesn't care about cars), the almost pornographic amount of car revving throughout this franchise is basically the equivalent of dudes showing abs to the teen girl audience in Twilight. It's like comparing apples to oranges in terms of what's worse, but they're both cheap forms of empty excitement. If you left the theater talking about how cool the cars were, first and foremost, that's in the same league as tweens saying how hawt R-Patt is. They're just different things to gawk at in substitute for real film elements. I don't know why I've decided to end this review with a comparison between Fast & Furious with Twilight, but it's probably because they're both kind of silly to outsiders. I honestly didn't intend on ending the review this way when I started it... Sorry, Tim... :(

5 out of 10


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on May 29, 2013 at 3:39:57 pm

Tim Wilson, white courtesy phone....


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Furious Fast
on May 29, 2013 at 9:06:38 pm

I've been trying to write something about this, but it depressed the shit out of me. WHY. WHY. WHY, dammit? Somebody tell me. There was no way to see this coming.

The first one was good, the second was okay, three was meh, four was AWESOME, five was AWESOMMMMMMMMME...commercials and trailers for Six looked EVEN BETTER...and it was a shiny, squealing-tired turd.

Look, I'm sorry to be harsh about this (no I'm not...well, maybe a little...actually, no, not sorry at all), but complaining about nonsensical, consequence-free violence in a movie like this exposes the SPEAKER as the moron. It's like getting indignant over Bugs Bunny. "Yosemite Sam is only 3 feet tall! NO WAY he survives getting an anvil dropped on his head!"

That said: there's an amazing stunt that ends with two people flying through the air between two spans of a bridge over a chasm, flying through thin air with the ground hundreds of feet below them -- breathtaking. I'm thinking, "This is one of the great stunts of all time" -- until it ends with...them landing on a WINDSHIELD. From a height of what? Twenty feet or something? And since it's SAFETY GLASS, whew! Safe and sound!

This was so ridiculous even by FF standards that the audience groaned. GROANED. I'm not sure I've ever heard anything quite like it.

Then one character says to the other, no kidding, actually SAYS, "How did you know there'd be a car ---" wait for it...wait for it -- "TO BREAK OUR FALL."

What. the. FFFFFFFFFFFFF.

They showed the beginning of this stunt in the commercial, and I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that one of them is Vin Diesel, and that he survives. He had to, because he had to be the one to answer the question, "How did you know there'd be a car there to break our fall."

He looks into her eyes.

"I DIDN'T."

Very, very romantic, dammit.

It doesn't bother me that this opened at $97 million domestic, or that it's already over $300m worldwide. Good for them. Five increasingly better movies in a row, they deserve it. Hey, they got my money too, and gladly. I trampled old ladies to get my tickets.

But DAY-UM. Sad trombone noise, man.

There's a bunch more to bark about. It's hard to imagine a Fast & Furious movie where Vin Diesel was wasted, but he was. Equally hard to imagine Dwayne Johnson being wasted in a movie where he gets second billing, but he was. (It was a lot of fun, though, to meet a bad guy so huge that he picked The Rock up by the throat and tossed him like a rag doll through a WALL. Now THAT's what I'm talking about.)

My wife felt the same way, and as you know, franchise fans are 49% women. (And for those keeping score, like me, that's actually up 2% from FF5.)

As also you know, I was looking forward to this one, and my wife was every bit as much. We LOVE them things. But sad trombone again, man.

So after the bite-fest that was Star Trek followed by the deflated Furious, I think we're done with movies until Catching Fire in November.

It better not suck, dammit.


Return to posts index


Scott Roberts
Re: Furious Fast
on May 29, 2013 at 9:22:38 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Look, I'm sorry to be harsh about this (no I'm not...well, maybe a little...actually, no, not sorry at all), but complaining about nonsensical, consequence-free violence in a movie like this exposes the SPEAKER as the moron. It's like getting indignant over Bugs Bunny. "Yosemite Sam is only 3 feet tall! NO WAY he survives getting an anvil dropped on his head!""

Hey, all I was asking was that the make-up department put a few bloody cuts on Diesel's chrome dome. Maybe on his arms, too. And maybe don't put your hero in a white shirt if you never plan on making it dirty...

I don't agree that complaining about consequence free violence is the same for Fast and Furious 6 as it is for a Looney Tunes cartoon. First, the car movie isn't a cartoon. Second, it's not a comedy (let alone a comedy cartoon). Third, it's clearly trying to stay grounded in some sort of reality, otherwise why are people dying brutally under the weight of a thundering tank, or having characters falling to their deaths off of the airplane scene. If I'm supposed to shrug off everything in this movie as goofy cartoon stuff, then they might as well have added Three Stooges sound effects and had cars with bazooka headlights. I mean, this isn't GI JOE we're talking about here. Fourth, Die Hard movies are just as insane, but John McClain still struggles throughout.

F&F6 was going for "cool", or more so "THAT'S SO COOL, BRAH", and not so much "Please shrug off our action scenes". It just failed at being "cool." That's all.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Furious Fast
on May 29, 2013 at 11:41:15 pm

First, let me apologize for not reading all of your post before I wrote mine. It was killing me to re-live how much I hated this movie. LOL I read like the first paragraph and the grade. I suck. I promise I'll be more careful.

At BEST, I'd have rated it a 3 out of 10, and the main thing getting it up that high was Tyrese. They did a great job of showcasing his comic skills. Full marks.

So please accept my apologies for apparent disrespect. I'd have never said what I did if there was any possibility it would be construed as applying to you.


[Scott Roberts] "Die Hard movies are just as insane, but John McClain still struggles throughout."

Exactly my point. The chief pleasure of a Die Hard movie is Bruce Willis in pain. Quipping yes, explosions, yes, but the ONLY thing that makes it a Die Hard movie, the ONLY thing, is John McClain bleeding.


THE DIE HARD BARGAIN

You can summarize the whole series as, "Overmatched, balding scrawny dude repeatedly gets pounded and survives solely by his New York wit and witticisms. And he bleeds. A LOT."

Key line in the entire franchise: "Shoot. The glass."

If you go to see a Die Hard movie and say, "He'd SO have gotten a concussion there," then you're in the wrong movie. That's not why Die Hard movies exist, any more than, "Gee, did they have to pick on Bruce Willis so much? That seems uncalled for."

No, that's the only thing that IS called for.

Otherwise, you're in the wrong movie. The filmmakers have made a bargain with you, and if John isn't bleeding, they've broken faith with you.

If he gets concussed, or even suffers a compound fracture, they've broken faith with you.

The negotiation is over. That's the bargain, and it's been the bargain since 1988.

Someone can say they want a different bargain, but in that case, they belong in a theater that doesn't have Die Hard anywhere on the marquee.

Not that anybody's not free to pay their money and make any complaint they want. But if they're going to get their money's worth, they have to agree to the bargain.

I'm actually going to summarize my entire post, and my feelings about two of my favorite franchises, thusly: Die Hard and Fast & Furious have exactly opposite relationships to the fate of their heroes and the physical world they live in.

I've described my view of the Die Hard Bargain, so...



THE FAST & FURIOUS BARGAIN


"Not only do the laws of physics not apply, the laws of CARS do not apply."

Before we get to physics, however, a mathematical formula: "(Bugs Bunny + Cars) - emotional depth = Fast & Furious."

Actually, the other way I'd summarize these two franchises is, "John = Energizer Bunny, Dom = Bugs Bunny."

I, as Mr. Hyperbole, cannot state this strongly enough. If you're not on board with Dom = Bugs Bunny, I'm surprised you rated the movie as highly as a 5. You were inherently mismatched.

In fact, if I'd known you were thinking about seeing it, I'd have gently steered you away from this and toward a Twilight movie instead. LOL THOSE are more logical than this.

And I'm a fan. This is just the bargain that the filmmakers and I struck six movies ago, and whatever my issues with this one, I expect them to keep it next time.

Back to physics.

Remember that whole section of The Italian Job where they realized that the suspensions and tires needed to be changed out or else the cars couldn't actually carry the gold? There are no suspensions in the cars in Fast & Furious. There are no tires for any other reason than squealing.

The only car-related challenges in those movies are addressed with engines and nitro. No other parts of cars exist in a Fast & Furious movie. That's been the bargain now for all six movies.

You remember seeing all those hand-holds welded into the roofs of cars? Where did THEY come from? And WHY? Did they PLAN to spend a good bit of the movie hanging on to the roof?

Hey, and who on the team has WELDING skills? NOBODY.

Why? Because a hand-hold is not an engine. Welders don't work on engines.

That's the bargain. Engines. Nitro. Period.


"Cars can be totaled, but not made dirty at any time, for any reason."

Totaling cars is AWESOME. That's part of why we go to a Fast & Furious movie.

HOWEVER, a car can come flying out of the rubble of a skyscraper that has just collapsed on it -- but it can't have a speck of dust. If there's one tiny speck of dust, it'd go in the blooper reel. People would make fun of the dude who let a speck of dust get on a car for the rest of his career. He'd probably never work anywhere in Hollywood again.

Ditto the stars. Vin actually got beat down really badly by Dwayne in #5. The part that strained credibility was Vin coming back to win...but if you want a movie where the guy who's a foot taller, 50 pounds more muscular and trained in combat WINS? That's another movie.

When Dwayne gets slammed up against a wall in 6 and doesn't get dirty, that's because this is NOT Die Hard. The deal we made six movies ago is NOT that he gets dirty, it's that he NOT get dirty.

Or out of breath. You ever see anybody breathe heavy in one of these movies? NO.

Do you ever NOT see Bruce Willis panting? NO. We pay money to see him pant.

We pay exactly the same amount of money to get exactly the OPPOSITE result from a Fast & Furious movie.

I'll also note that were probably more bullets fired in this FF movie than in the last Die Hard movie and what, ONE person got hit by a bullet? A nameless extra. That's okay, because part of the Fast & Furious bargain is "nobody gets shot."

That she was apparently shot should have been the tip-off that Letty was still alive. LOL

And hey, maybe the bad guy in FF6 died in a hail of bullets. I honestly can't remember. But if he did, that'd be a bummer. I hope he died when an anvil dropped on his head.


That was the heart of my point, typically over-long and over-emphatically stated. Your critiques are always more careful and well-considered than I'm capable of, but I'm sticking to the idea that a movie with dust, debris or scratches on either cars or people CANNOT have the name Fast & Furious on it. It's against every aspect of every bargain that we and the filmmakers have held for six movies.

A bargain which YOU can choose to void at any time of course. LOL But that's the bargain. Asking them to change it at this point isn't fair to them.

Not that it's your job to be fair to them. It's your dough. But it's THEIR job to be fair to ME.


[Scott Roberts] "It just failed at being "cool." That's all."

As much as I feel they kept their end of the bargain re: dirt, panting, etc., we agree entirely on that. It wasn't cool. And as I began this post with, you were more generous with it than I am.

Also again as I began the post with, my apologies for any unintended disrespect.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Furious Fast
on May 30, 2013 at 1:09:42 am

[Tim Wilson] "And hey, maybe the bad guy in FF6 died in a hail of bullets. I honestly can't remember. But if he did, that'd be a bummer. I hope he died when an anvil dropped on his head."

Actually, I finally remembered. Neither a hail of bullets nor an anvil, but I'm okay with it.

I shouldn't have said what I did about the lack of emotional depth to these movies as anything other than a punchline, because it's not actually true. There's quite a bit of heart in these, and a lot of the momentum of them is driven by very personal dynamics.

That was one of the weird things about the whole good guy/bad guy dynamic. The bad guy says to Dom, walk away, and even though you've drawn blood, we're all good.

Dom didn't say the say thing in as many words, but he did basically say exactly the same thing. "I'm in this for one reason. You can keep your ONE MEEEELION DOLLARS and destroy the world because supervillains will be supervillains, hahaha! So yeah, I guess we're all good. Say hi to your white cat and Mini-Me!" They didn't actually care about killing the other guy all that much, one way or the other.

Can you imagine Gruber saying to McClain, "Dude, let us have the money and you can be home in time to tuck in your kids." Or John saying, "You know what, keep the dough. I don't care about stopping you. Just gimme one thing and I'm on my way."

No no no, these guys wanted each other D. E. A. D. at pretty much any cost. We wanted the bad guy dead maybe even more than John did. LOL But in this case, no kidding, it was really bugging me while I was washing the dishes just now -- how the hell did the guy in FF6 die??? I clearly wasn't invested in the outcome.

There were three other complete lapses of emotional weight in the movie that really annoyed me, because yeah, okay, part of the "no cars or people get dirty" bargain includes much more than a tip of the hat to interpersonal dynamics.

But hey, I cared more about Bugs Bunny than most actual people. Still do. LOL


Return to posts index


Kylee Peña
Re: Furious Fast
on May 30, 2013 at 12:49:09 pm

I haven't seen FF for a long time and I don't plan to anytime soon, but I'm taking issue with part of your bargain compared with part of your gripe about the sucktastic nature of this film.

Basically, for FF to be successful to you, it needs to have a lot of cool cars driving, crashing, and blowing up in spectacular ways. These cars are to be pristine until they blow up. The stars that drive these cars are to be pristine until they blow up too. It's a fantasy land of stunts and beautiful people/things. There is a complete lack of reality here.

So if this is all that's required, then why does a stupid ending to a stunt or a terrible line of dialog make for a bad film? Did they not hold up their end of the bargain? No reality, beautiful people and cars, etc. No promises that these people will talk cleverly. You're accepting that you're not going to question the anvil being dropped on the head. If the pretty people land in a convenient way after a pretty stunt, why is THAT just too much? Why does that make the theater of viewers revolt against the movie?

I know why it becomes too much for me, but this seems to fit into your expectations. And a discussion of the success of a film based on a deal made with the filmmakers and the expectations you bring to the theater is interesting to me, even though I never cared about this franchise in the least.

blog: kyleesportfolio.com/blog
twitter: @kyl33t
demo: kyleewall.com


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Furious Fast
on May 30, 2013 at 2:28:52 pm

Your problems with The Flat and the Facile remind me of an experience in my youth, playing with toy soldiers and a super-8 camera in my basement. I created very busy scenes with all kinds of mayhem, but when I spliced it together and projected it, I had no story, no goal, no characters, and all the action felt empty and meaningless. Like Michael Bay movies. :-)

An audience can forgive and allow for a lot of things if they can stay connected to the characters and a story. What it seems they did for this movie is try to cram a story in between setpieces of action. Action HAS to be story-driven, or it's just fireworks.


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Re: Furious Fast
on May 30, 2013 at 2:39:26 pm

[Tim Wilson] "Also again as I began the post with, my apologies for any unintended disrespect."

Haha, it's all good! I've been called worse anyway! No disrespect taken. Ride or die.


[Tim Wilson] "it was really bugging me while I was washing the dishes just now -- how the hell did the guy in FF6 die??? I clearly wasn't invested in the outcome."

Yeah I have to say it was the least impactful death I've ever seen in a film like this. They didn't even show the body. And not to ruin anything for those who haven't seen it, but I guess I don't really care anyway, when a certain main character falls onto the runway off of a car only a few feet off the ground, I was a little shocked to learn she died from that. I could maybe see her getting tons of broken bones or something, but considering they've all survived car crashes previously in the movie, I can't believe she died from that. Also, this huge runway is now littered with bodies, and at least a couple of them probably survived the fall, right? Or not? Is anyone going to collect the bodies?


[Mark Suszko] "Vin gets a pass for Pitch Black and being th voice of the Iron Giant."

Before FF6, they showed a trailer for his new Riddick film, the cleverly titled "Riddick". Long story short, I don't think I'll be buying a ticket early for that one.


[Tim Wilson] "When Dwayne gets slammed up against a wall in 6 and doesn't get dirty, that's because this is NOT Die Hard. The deal we made six movies ago is NOT that he gets dirty, it's that he NOT get dirty."

Maybe everything is just covered in this stuff:







Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: Furious Fast
on May 29, 2013 at 11:50:40 pm

Vin gets a pass for Pitch Black and being th voice of the Iron Giant.

Dwayne gets a pass for The Rundown, can't get over how great he was in that.

I still have hopes that Superman will be good. Unless the trailers are VERY good at lying, I think they've got a good story there.


Return to posts index

Kylee Peña
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on May 29, 2013 at 8:34:04 pm

[Scott Roberts] " before the credits started they put up a paragraph long disclaimer to the audience along the lines of "These were stunt cars and stunt performers, don't try driving like the people in this movie. It's dangerous. This wasn't real.""

Did they include this disclaimer with the other films? If not, what the hell happened in between 5 and 6 to make this a necessity?

blog: kyleesportfolio.com/blog
twitter: @kyl33t
demo: kyleewall.com


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on May 29, 2013 at 9:11:19 pm

[Kylee Wall] "Did they include this disclaimer with the other films? "

Definitely.

One of the things that got us so excited about the movie was the "PG-13" warning. And I quote:

Intense sequences of violence and action and mayhem throughout. [My emphasis.] Some sexuality and language.


Every time the spot came on, we'd be all "Boy-EEEE!!! Mayhem throughout, yo!" (Yeah, we're in our fitties, but so's Flavor Flav. Get over it.) Followed by assorted other hooting.

Always ending with a chuckle over "some language." Because you don't need all that much language for a movie like this.


Return to posts index


Stephen Smith
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on Feb 10, 2014 at 10:29:55 pm

Just Redboxed Fat and Furious 6 and liked it more they you guys, but Fast 5 is way better then 6 for sure.

Don't bother reading this if you don't want the film ruined for you.

I would like to point out that Fast and Furious 6 has a 84% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is a lot higher then Battleship.

[Scott]
I guess that's a thematic problem with these films. As I've said before, these movies are about a group of super criminals who are all enemies of our country, living in tropical mansions and villas around the world, with access to whatever they want. They are basically criminals without consequence.

In Fast 5 they take down an evil drug lord and steal his money. That makes them good guys right? In Fast 4 they take down an Evil Drug cartel that is so evil the police lost agents in the process. Vin Dissel is offered his freedom for helping the police but is betrayed or lied to by the police and they just throw him in jail for helping them take down one of the biggest and meanest drug lords ever. Which is the set up for 5 when they brake Vin Dissel out of jail and become enemies of our country. Taking down a drug cartel makes them good guys. Fast 3 isn't about anything really. Fast 2 once again is about helping the police take down a bad guy which makes them good guys.

[Scott]
Even characters that died in the previous movies get to come back to life, somehow, and rejoin the family.

If you are talking about Michelle Rodriguez we never really new what happened to her until 6. If you are talking about Sung Kang they answer that question in the middle of the credits. I actually thought that was an interesting set up for the next film. Sung Kang blowing up in Tokyo Drift (Fast 3) never made any sense until you see the credits of Fast 6. Has a movie franchise ever jumbled up the order of the movies? The hole time I thought the movies where in a linear order but Fast 3 takes place after Fast 6. That felt like a movie first. You have to give them points for that. I wonder if they planned that when they made Fast 3. Sung Kang's character in the film was one of my favorites so curse you Jason Statham.


All in all this film was really silly but that is what you should expect with this franchise. I agree that they kicked up the silly to much on this one and it became distracting. However, I'm very curious about how they are going to handle Paul Walker's death in the next film.

Stephen Smith

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on Feb 10, 2014 at 11:34:23 pm

[Stephen Smith] " Fast and Furious 6 has a 84% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is a lot higher then Battleship."

It's also higher than Fast Five! Not much -- only 2% more, which is probably within the margin of error as such things go. But even as much as I didn't like it, it's not like it's a dog like fleas.

I mean, it wasn't as bad as Gravity or anything. Now THAT thing was a dog. LOL


[Stephen Smith] " they take down an evil drug lord and steal his money. That makes them good guys right? "

I completely agree with this. The movies take great care, EXTREME care, to stay on very firm moral footing. Religious faith and traditional family bonds are held in exceptionally high esteem -- I defy you to name me a franchise that regularly includes prayer. The concepts of loyalty, even friendship, are absolutely front and center.

Not that Vin's character doesn't start as a thief, and maintain his larcenous ways...but even the larceny is in the context of his love for his family, and his need to maintain order -- including the centrality of faith -- as he also serves as the unironic father figure. He may be the most soft-hearted hood in movie history.

Law enforcement as a PROFESSION is treated with respect. In one movie there are corrupt cops, but even there, the corruption transcends individual police offers. Rather, it points to the corruption that drug money brings to entire societies, where individual cops are the victims as much as the perpetrators.

Indeed, one of those honest law enforcement offers who was a victim of corruption is in fact part of the gang. So is an FBI agent. You're right Stephen -- their roles in these movies are specifically tied to their identities as officers of the law. Heck, by the end of 6, the gang is dang near HALF law enforcement, right?

As I mentioned at the time, even in the context of not liking 6 as much as I liked 5, I'm also not aware of any franchise as progressive with its women CHARACTERS (as distinct from women on beaches as eye candy, which these movies obviously have). They're cops, mechanics, hard-core drivers, ass-kickers, shooters and yes, mothers -- but even the moms are bad asses whose racing, shooting, and plotting skills are 100% on par with the men. They're not subordinate in any way. There's not a single man in the movie with a skill that a woman doesn't have. Okay, maybe the bomb guy and the locks guy...but that's it...and in this world, women COULD be in those roles.

So if you want to say preposterous, yes. Even as a fan, I agree completely. But lacking moral fiber? Absolutely disagreeing with that, and agreeing with Stephen that their heart is in the right place....maybe only the right-ISH place LOL...but I do think that even at their goofiest, these movies have heart, and wear both their heart and their ethics on their sleeve.


Return to posts index

Stephen Smith
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on Feb 11, 2014 at 4:06:31 pm

[Tim]

[Stephen Smith] " Fast and Furious 6 has a 84% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is a lot higher then Battleship."

It's also higher than Fast Five! Not much -- only 2% more, which is probably within the margin of error as such things go. But even as much as I didn't like it, it's not like it's a dog like fleas.


I was really surprised by that. I would have thought that Fast 5 would have had a higher rating. The critics liked Fast 5 more then 6.

Another thing I liked about the film is how they tied the older films into the movie. Paul Walker punches the cop in the nose again and the drug lord ties into the film again and it goes on and on. I still think it was really interesting to make Fast 3 take place after Fast 6 and I can't think of any franchise that has done that before.

Stephen Smith

Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Vimeo page


Return to posts index


Tim Wilson
Re: Fast & Furious 6
on Feb 11, 2014 at 5:18:14 pm

[Stephen Smith] "I still think it was really interesting to make Fast 3 take place after Fast 6 and I can't think of any franchise that has done that before"

I forgot to mention - I agree! That's a very cool observation. A sad coincidence that that's the one with no Paul Walker in it.

Apropos of almost nothing, I also forgot to mention that the director of these has also directed several episodes of Community.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]