racketboy.com

Pulsar_t wrote:Fast & Furious is not good.

Get out.

Fast 1 = Decent crime movie.
Fast 2 = Crap, completely and utter crap.
Tokyo Drift = Terrible Concept, decent soundtrack, stupid fun movie.
Fast 4 = A subpar crime movie, but proves that Vin Diesel is bulletproof.
Fast 5 = FRIGGIN INSANE - Vin Diesel and the Rock fighting and throwing each other through walls. Turn off your mind and enjoy it like an 80s action film. Its just awesome.
Fast 6 = WILL BE FRIGGIN INSANE.

I've never even seen the first fast/furious.

The way I look at them is they are basically those "You got served" type movies, but with cars.

My wife tried to get me to watch PITCH PERFECT last night. She said her cousin had her watch it when she was in Iowa with her. Claimed it was 'basically one of those singing movies, but acapella, and it's *actually* funny.'

Yeah. I got about 20 minutes in and had to stop. The music was just so terrible. It had Adam Devine (workaholics) in it, but even he couldn't save it. So terrible.

indecks wrote:I've never even seen the first fast/furious.

I highly recommend watching the first if you want a decent crime movie, or the fifth if you want a stupidly over the top action movie.

I can see where you get the "You Got Served" ideal, and that is VERY present in the second film. But the others are just fun action movies.

dsheinem wrote:
You said nothing about the film itself here, just the response to it by fans after years of built up sexual tension. It was a marketing triumph, no doubt.

The film is not a good "stand alone" superhero film - Wheedon's writing relies far too heavily on the assumption that viewers would have seen the earlier films about individual characters and it makes the in-film character arcs seem very rushed and largely uninteresting, as is the dialogue and relationship building. I think that if you view it after seeing Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 1 & 2, Hulk, and whatever else precedes it than you can think a bit more highly of it probably...but as a film on the strength of its own merits? It was pretty average.

The fact that it assumed viewers had seen the rest of the movies was one of the reasons I liked it. I was actually really surprised as the movie started how quickly paced it all felt. I was expecting a lot of rehash to summarize the other films and was happy that I didn't have to sit through that. Maybe as a completely separate entity it isn't as strong, but these continuous reboots are becoming a joke. If I have to sit through Bruce losing his parents in the next Batman series or Peter Parker getting bit by another spider, I'm going to lose it.

I had a blast at Ottawa comic-con 2013, and instead of staying for the nerd core concert we decided to go see Iron Man 3, in 3D. I thought it was great and easy to get into, even though I haven't seen the second movie in the series.

I never really gave the Fast & Furious movies a chance. I remember watching Tokyo Drift and thought it was a fun but stupid like fastbilly1 said. I may just have to re-visit them with a more open mind.

I enjoyed the original Fast & Furious, but had no interest in the second or third since they basically had nothing to do with the first. I should probably see the fourth and fifth since they actually are followups, I just haven't got around to it yet.

indecks wrote:I've never even seen the first fast/furious.

Related.

Going to see the Fast and Furious series is the absolute worst. Not because of the movies, but because of the audience(s). Leaving the theater sucks too as every numbskull in the theater believes that their Galant now possesses an imaginary nitrous tank.

I have nothing against car clubs. They are a great way for people, often with social anxiety issues, to share their passion and make friends at the same time. But peeling out of a theater parking lot impresses no one. Take that nonsense back to the abandoned Circuit City parking lot where it belongs.

_____________
SLAP SHOT

Best sports movie ever? Very possible.

heh I remember when the movie came out, all of sudden these 'car clubs' started popping up around town, down in south texas. It was so ridiculous. You had your Sentra club, your Civic club, Kawasaki Ninja club, and then there was this one guy in a huge Chevy luxury van, all by himself in the parking lot of a closed mexican restaurant. But he had the KITT scrolling light thing on his grill. It was just sorry.


RE: Avengers

I agree with Jrecee about the Avengers assumptions. I mean come on, it was clear what the other films were doing, setting up the universe to climax with Avengers. If the movie didn't stand on it's own, that's the viewers fault if you think about it.

It behooved them to watch the other movies to get the full enjoyment from Avengers. It's like having some one completely unfamiliar with Star Wars watch Empire Strikes Back for the first time, then having them just say "huh. ok" to the I am your father scene. And then having them claim there was no build up to that scene. That they just 'sprung' it on them so it didn't have an impact.

Yeah dude, but it was sort of your responsibility to watch A New Hope so you could get some background. Had you prepared by watching ANH, that scene would have made you shit your pants as a 10 year old.

The general public had 5 movies to set up what was happening in the Avengers. If they thought the movie fell flat because it 'didnt explain enough' that's their fault for not watching Cap, Hulk, Iron Man 1/2 and Thor.

indecks wrote: If the movie didn't stand on it's own, that's the viewers fault if you think about it.

Except that it isn't necessary to have seen those other films to understand the Avengers so it isn't a sequel by any typical understanding of the word. It was designed to work as a stand alone that viewers would get more out of if they'd seen the related films. As stand-alone film, though, it isn't very good.

dsheinem wrote:

indecks wrote: If the movie didn't stand on it's own, that's the viewers fault if you think about it.

Except that it isn't necessary to have seen those other films to understand the Avengers so it isn't a sequel by any typical understanding of the word. It was designed to work as a stand alone that viewers would get more out of if they'd seen the related films. As stand-alone film, though, it isn't very good.

I never considered it a stand alone film. If you haven't seen the others, of course it's gonna fall flat, that's why you're supposed to watch the others first. Think of it like a TV series with an ongoing storyline. If you only watch occasionally, you won't be as impressed as the people who watch every week (speaking from experience as I didn't fully enjoy Deep Space Nine until I got the dvds and could watch it from the beginning).