The Fast and the Furious

[stillakid]

So, I finally watched this for the first time. I gotta say that I liked it. What was all that dissension from critics all about? Upon one viewing, it seemed to be a pretty solid screenplay with great dialogue and fully realized characters. Am I missing something? What did you guys think?

[2-1B]

I liked it I enjoy Diesel's films (especially Boiler Room) to begin with, so I expected to like his role.

I found myself wondering why they would go to help that guy who was trying to rip off the trucker at the end . . . but I like that because they didn't make it quite so predictable. I usually like to have something to contemplate while watching a movie

[Fulit]

Every once in a while a movie comes out that inspires imitation from teenagers on a massive scale. I have never seen so many "street racers" (wannabe teenagers) as I did after this movie. Why are kids so bloody stupid?

[Rollo Tomassi]

While I think both Vin Diesel and Paul Walker are excellent actors (Walker just needs to find a good role/director) I thought the premise of this film was silly and the whole plot and execution of the story was weak and uninspired. It was a generic cop/action film that focused on the cars too much and did not tread any original ground. I watched it once and enjoyed it for the most part(thanks to the charismatic Diesel and the delicious Jordana Brewster..YUMMY!), but I have no desire to watch it again or buy the DVD (the true test of a movies "goodness.")

[stillakid]

Originally posted by Caesar
I liked it
I found myself wondering why they would go to help that guy who was trying to rip off the trucker at the end . . . but I like that because they didn't make it quite so predictable. I usually like to have something to contemplate while watching a movie

The cop went to stop the "gang" because he ended up caring about them..."going native" as his supervisor accused him of doing in an earlier scene. Saving the schmuck who was stuck hanging on the truck was a way to "prove" his loyalty and friendship to Diesel's character. He didn't want to see Diesel or his friends get killed or locked up, so he figured that if he could stop them, he and the girl could convince them all to knock it off.

The only thing that I didn't get in the movie was at the very end when Diesel decides to race across the tracks. I'm still not sure what the point of that was. Was he expecting to commit suicide? Did he think that he would get across the tracks but the cop wouldn't, thus escaping? Where was he heading in such a hurry anyway? Before that little sequence, I was assuming that he was headed over to the motorcycle gangs HQ to inflict some damage in revenge, but it didn't play out that way.

By the way, if you didn't hang out until the end of the credits, there is a final shot at the very end of Diesel in Baja basically to show us that he got away or something.

[SithDroid]

Originally posted by Rollo Tomassi
I thought the premise of this film was silly and the whole plot and execution of the story was weak and uninspired. It was a generic cop/action film that focused on the cars too much and did not tread any original ground. I watched it once and enjoyed it for the most part(thanks to the charismatic Diesel and the delicious Jordana Brewster..YUMMY!), but I have no desire to watch it again or buy the DVD (the true test of a movies "goodness.")

I agree. I saw it against my will and it was an ok picture, but one that I would never watch again or buy on DVD.

[2-1B]

Originally posted by stillakid
The cop went to stop the "gang" because he ended up caring about them..."going native" as his supervisor accused him of doing in an earlier scene. Saving the schmuck who was stuck hanging on the truck was a way to "prove" his loyalty and friendship to Diesel's character. He didn't want to see Diesel or his friends get killed or locked up, so he figured that if he could stop them, he and the girl could convince them all to knock it off.

That's exactly what I mean I thought the guy who was stuck on the truck was a jackass and I didn't care if he survived or not. So part of me just wanted Walker's character to leave it alone . . . but I liked the fact that he stayed in the gray area and showed some compassion for the sleaze.

Rollo, I like your criteria concerning DVDs and a movie's value. I feel the same way about some movies, and I immediately can't wait for the DVD. In this case, I liked the movie but not enough to buy it.

[stillakid]

Originally posted by Caesar

Rollo, I like your criteria concerning DVDs and a movie's value. I feel the same way about some movies, and I immediately can't wait for the DVD. In this case, I liked the movie but not enough to buy it.

The DVD question is a whole other topic, but is becoming a "problem" in and of itself. For instance, I heard Danny DeVito say yesterday that he left some of his favorite stuff out of Death To Smoochy due to studio pressure to "dilute" the black comedy of the script. He shot it all anyway and intends to release it with the DVD.

SO, the question for moviegoers becomes, do you go drop 8 bucks to see it on a big screen, knowing that the entire intended story isn't going to be shown to you, or do you just wait for the DVD? Or do you do both?

If you judge the film (poorly) based purely on the big-screen version, it may be an unfair conclusion due to scenes cut for studio or time considerations, so seeing the DVD version might actually answer some of those nagging questions that made you hate it the movie the first time.

Thoughts?

[2-1B]

Good points stillakid. Regarding deleted scenes: I love seeing them on DVDs, but only if it's stuff the director cut due to time constraints, story flow, stuff like that. I've seen directors on their DVDs lament a cut because they loved the scene but had to do it "for the sake of the film." I appreciate that position.

This DeVito story is news to me, and based on what you said I think it's deplorable. No, I don't want to see a movie that is not as good as the director could have made it (of course I exempt poor decisions and honest mistakes from this viewpoint). I mean that a director owes it to the audience to make the film to the best of his or her honest abilities. Intentionally omitting stuff just because one knows it will end up on the DVD is a slippery slope

[stillakid]

Originally posted by Caesar
Intentionally omitting stuff just because one knows it will end up on the DVD is a slippery slope

I think that you understood what I said, but just to be sure and that I don't mislead anyone, the original screenplay for Death To Smoochy is fairly dark. WB wanted to maintain that feel, which is why they went to DeVito to helm it, however, the studio wanted to tone it down for the mass audience so they put pressure on him to leave some of the good stuff out. I don't know what the studio's position is on putting deleted scenes back in for DVD, but based on precedent, studios seem to encourage it. That seems to be a rather silly and contradictory opinion for them to have, but I suppose they think that DVD is still a specialty market for film-buffs who want to see the more shocking stuff and they edit a "safe" version for mass-audience release.