PeterDavid.net

"Speed Racer" is to "Blade Runner" as "Bugsy Malone" is to "The Godfather."

I have to agree with Peter David on this and say that I quite enjoyed the movie. In fact, I enjoyed it much more than I expected. I went to the movie simply because I think the Wachowskis are brilliant visual filmmakers, and I knew the movie would be gorgeous, even if I didn't enjoy it much. I'll also freely admit that, for the first 20 minutes or so, I felt very disconnected from the characters and perhaps a tad overwhelmed. However, after that, the movie really pulled me in, and I found myself enjoying it immensely, and actually caring about the characters.

I think it's a very strong film, and moreover, it's fun. It's something that a family can enjoy together and that's becoming increasingly rare. And even for someone like myself, who has no children to take to the theater, it offers a lot of enjoyment.

I would agree with this.

My first thought on seeing the visuals was "this looks like 60s retro and Blade Runner had too much sugar [and some crack] and had a love child."

I also am mystified by the fact that the critics seem pretty universally to hate the movie. The majority of people I know who have seen it really enjoyed it.

"Speed Racer" is to "Blade Runner" what "Bugsy Malone" is to "The Godfather"

No. It's really not.

PAD

I also am mystified by the fact that the critics seem pretty universally to hate the movie. The majority of people I know who have seen it really enjoyed it.

I suspect a majority of the people you know don't have a beef with the Wachowskis. Hollywood thrives on two things: Taking glee in the success of unknowns, and taking even more glee in the failure of people who are successful. Ridley Scott made the critically acclaimed "The Duelists" and the financial smash-hit "Alien." I suspect plenty of people were itching to see him take a fall, and when a visionary film that a lot of people didn't "get" came out, they seized the opportunity. I think we're seeing a replay of that now.

PAD

Drugs are bad, mmmmkay.

While the movie was a tad too long, it was still a fantatic ride. It amazes me that reviewers just cannot allow themselves to actually enjoy a fun movie, they feel the need to rip it to shreds.

IMO, Speed Racer was more fun to watch than Iron Man, even though they're both very good movies.

You may recall that Blade Runner actually beat out E.T. for the Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo for their year. Would it not be a hoot and another half if Speed Racer did the same to some sure-shoo-in competitor for Long Form?

Haven't seen it yet so I can't judge it but comparing it to Blade Runner is mighty high praise.

I'd say maybe a better comparison would be TRON, which also bombed and was also technically fresh and new and ahead of its time.

What a lot of people are objecting to is the amount spent on a kids movie about characters that few kids remember. That's not entirely fair--it shouldn't matter what a movie costs, just if it's good or not--but it's a fact. ISHTAR isn't the worst comedy ever made but t cost almost as much as any 15 bad comedies put together.

At least BLADE RUNNER tried to tell an ambitious story and be more than eye candy. I have no objection to eye candy, even expensive eye candy. But as soon as I heard about SPEED RACER I knew it would not bring them in, no matter what. Most of us who remember it remember it mostly for the atrocious dubbing. Not a big selling point. The fans of the Wachowskis are mostly MATRIX fans, not the SPEED RACER demo at all. As a 50 million dollar gamble, maybe. A $150 million or more movie? Yikes.

You know, they could have made a racing movie free of the Speed Racer mythos, it might have succeeded. If I were making an adventure movie about a writer/pilot I sure as hell would not call it CLUTCH CARGO and spend 160 million on it.

How could it be bad? It has John Goodman in it. If it's half as good as King Ralph, I'll be satisfied.

Well, I think it’s a bit funny that a live action film based on a sixties cartoon is being viewed as seomthing that is supposed to be ‘high art’ as opposed to just a bit of movie escapism. The review I read in the paper was talking about the underpinnings of the Speed Racer franchise itself. If your daughter had fun and enjoyed the movie then I imagine it succeeded greatly.

I hadn't thought of it in that way PAD.
In fact, I'd kind of missed the negative publicity (which may be a miracle in of itself).
The film was fantastically good fun though, the only critiscm I'd level is that there were a huge number of families in the showing I saw, and (amusingly) the kids laughed at some of the (suprising) language, whilst the parents were in shock....
I do think they should have had a disclaimer however: 'Do not watch this film if driving'. I spent my trip home trying not to but my foot through the floor :(

I totally agree with PAD. The movie rocked. I went in kind of expecting it to suck, but had a great time. I'll probably see it again with my nephew on a DLP screen sometime.

Dawfydd Kelly said: "...the kids laughed at some of the (suprising) language, whilst the parents were in shock...."

I only remember 2 things as being possibly offensive. Speed says approximately "Don't bring that shit to my track." And Spritle gives the finger to a bad guy.

Were there more? Did I miss something?

When I saw the previews, I knew this movie had to be seen in the theater to fully appreciate the visuals. I found it to be more fun than the Iron Man movie. I won't be seeing Iron Man in the hteater again, but might go see Speed Racer again.

Wasn't planning to see it right away even though have the complete original on DVD.

Hated Matrix so that tag didn't entice me.

Friends wanted to go. Had fun with it, gotta love cars racing.
Besides wasn't the most appealing part of the original the MACH 5 herself?
Gotta love the MACH 5.
Not a great film but fun and pretty true to the series (and they didn't break canon, when you see it of if you did, you know what I mean)

I've only seen the preview so far (as it's not out here yet) but I was relatively impressed with what I saw.

My general experience has been that if the critics hate it, I love it and vice-versa. Maybe I'm just plebian? :-)

Peter, I think you're spot on about people in the future looking back on this and appreciating it. It's definately a stylistic piece and undeniably experimental. My friends and I possibly enjoyed it more than the children in the audience (and they were gorging themselves upon this film). I just don't think people have picked up on the tongue-in-cheek humor this film is trying to capture. The dynamics between the stoicism and melodrama you mentioned only make it funnier in my opinion.

Also, did the kid playing Spridle (sp) remind anybody else of a young Andy Richter? :)

What really bums me out is that this probably kills any chance of a WACKY RACERS movie. That would have been great. Yes, I AM serious.

What I don't get is people complaining that critics don't know how to enjoy a fun movie, a mere week after Iron Man received rave reviews. Maybe they just don't like bad fun movies (though I haven't seen Speed Racer, so I can't judge it for myself).

"How could it be bad? It has John Goodman in it. If it's half as good as King Ralph, I'll be satisfied."

You'll be satisfied. It IS half as good as King Ralph.

"'Speed Racer' is to 'Blade Runner' what 'Bugsy Malone' is to 'The Godfather.'

No. It's really not."

I stand corrected by a well-reasoned, professionally constructed argument. Well played, sir!

I've actually seen the movie, and it was, well, perfectly what it wanted to be, which is, the first ever live-action cartoon.

The look was fantastic. The races were thrilling, and utterly absurd, as were the fight scenes. The plot was enough to string together the action, and the writers should've realized that's all it was and trimmed the exposition scenes considerably. This movie needed time in the editing room.

But despite its flaws, I was entertained. It picked the right thing to do well for what it was. I disagree that this will become more than a cult classic - I think Tron is a smart comparison, not Blade Runner - but it's not a train wreck (car crash?) like some reviews seem to say.

Also: can't wait for the video game version. I've never seen a movie more crying out for one.

I agree with you in some respects -- Speed Racer didn't deserve the Rotten Tomatoes rating it got, and it was much better than I expected despite Matthew Fox showing all the personality of a rutabaga.

This was probably the first time I've had any appreciation for Michael Giacchino's scoring (frankly he's so bland that Hans Zimmer seems enthralling by comparison) because the ongoing variations on the Speed Racer music were not only often quite witty, but the composition overall had a subtlety to it that the rest of the movie lacked -- unlike many movie scores of late, the music didn't attempt to compete with the thundering soundtrack.

That said, the film left me with an ice cream headache and a touch of vertigo. God help epileptics.

So, overall? A bit of a failure with some magnificent visuals. The trick they did with the floating wipes built around various characters and scenes isn't a new trick, by the way -- I first saw something of the sort in a Pet Shop Boys video back in the 1980s.

Also, how can anyone seriously hate a movie in which a ninja not only turns out to be wearing polka-dotted boxers but gets his ass beat by John Goodman?

The negative reviews appear to come from the critics' perception that "Speed Racer" is a bad, unentertaining movie. PAD's feeling otherwise would be as convincing to them as their distaste for the film is to him. It is normal to trust his own taste better than theirs, but unjustified to think it self-evident that he is right.

I loved this movie!

I don't understand why critics hated it so much. It was amazing to look at at. The actors were great. It's a movie about race car driving how complicated does the plot need to be.

Emile was great as Speed. I'm 31, no kids. never saw the cartoon. Saw Iron Man the week before hoping there would be an Indiana Jones preview.. Iron Man was ok but Speed Racer was amazing, easily one of my favorite movies.

AT Speed Racer everyone in the theater was laughing, cheering, having a great time. When the kid flipped off the bad guy everyone gasped, which was great cause nothing shocks anyone anymore, nice to see the good old bird hasn't lost it.

I guess the only good thing about it tanking is that the DVD will be out sooner.

Personally, I was never a Speed Racer fan growing up, but after I saw the preview for it, I simply had to see it, and loved it to death. It was one of the most unique things I've ever seen.

Of course, the more negative reviews critics give a movie, the more likely I am to see it and probably love it. That's how I ended up seeing Wild Hogs, actually, which I enjoyed immensely. I prefer going to see fun movies, to space out for a few hours and enjoy myself. If I want drama and tragedy I'll flip on the news.

y'know, a thread like this certainly demonstates the ideas that opinions are like @$$holes - everybody has one.

Genuinely glad for those who enjoyed the film - good for you! Big supporter of the idea that some movies are there to just enjoy. This is why movies like Hudson hawk have their own cult following (yes, I'm a member of that cult).

Personally I don't plan to see the movie because I never have seen the original Speed Racer series and the campain for the film just didn't pique my intrest. Dosn't look bad, just not my cup o' tea. 'nuff said.

What I don't get is the need to be insulting when opinions clash.

Hence, James McClain -

How well reasoned and professionally constructed an argument can PAD be expected to make to a comment that demonstrated neither it's reason or or professionalisim?

Where were the bad reviews? I only saw the ones on Ebert and Roper. Surprisingly Roper and the fill in guy both liked it. Roper was a Speed Racer fan and loved it. People that grew up on the original show should drag as many people to see this as possible. It is a great looking, fun family film. I want it to do well enough here and overseas so that we get to see the rest of the Speed/Racer X arc from the show. As to the comments about language, it was a little jarring, It didn't bother me, but it was out of place. I think that it was included to guarantee at least a PG rating. I saw a quote from the head of a theater owners group saying that the reason that the movie didn't do well was because it was a PG. According to this person, only PG-13 films make money. PG films don't and G films are even worse.
I don't know if this is true, but if this is the perceived wisdom in Hollywood, the language might have been put in to get a certain rating and make the suits at Warner's happy.

The marketing campaign was to blame for Speed Racer's bad opening weekend. "from the makers of the Matrix Trilogy and V for Vendetta" angle was the wrong way to go for what is a very good kids movie. If the Spy Kids movie advertisements had "Form the makers of Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn" they would have received the same criticism as Speed Racer. The expectations of what type of movie it is supposed to be influences how people will judge a film.

(as I remember it) The same can be said for Blade Runner. When I was a kid I remembered the advertising consisting of Han Solo/Indiana Jones in a flying car in a flashy yet gritty in a cool way futuristic city hunting killer androids. If It was marketed with more of a comparison to film Nor crime drama and under played the SciFi element I bet it would have done better.

It's funny. I just got done writing an extra credit paper about Speed Racer for my Digital Media class. I got to see the film a few weeks early and I was completely floored by it. Peter is right about Speed Racer. Much like the Matrix before what we have here is a seminal film that will come to set the tone of effects driven films for years to come. In many ways this takes many of the techniques and ideas of people like Lucas and Rodriguiz and perfects them. Mark my words the last 3 minutes of the last race is going to, in years to come, become a (if not the) text book example of modern storytelling by way of intensified audiovisual aesthetics. Mark my words.

Well, I'm in the group that never paid much attention to the cartoon, don't care for the Wachowskis enough to go see a movie on their name alone, and quite frankly saw nothing in the previews that made me want to see it.

Just wanted to comment on two things;

- didn't the Wachowskis already 'fail' with the Matrix sequels and V For Vendetta? (I quite liked Vendetta but it seems like it didn't meet box office expectations...could be mistaken)

- unless it's a horror movie, I don't know anyone who really pays attention to what a movie's rating is when deciding if they want to see it.

Peter,

I thought you were going to say: [you] had heard it all before: "grown-ups."

My husband said it basically reminded him of a cross between Blade Runner and Willy Wonka.

We loved it too!

I noticed that at Rotten Tomatoes, Speed racer has a fresh rating of 32% by the critics..but the community has it rated at a 76% fresh rating. That tells you right there...critics don't get the movie at all. (I stopped listening to any movie critic years ago. Makes my movie going so much better. ;) )

For all those who enjoyed it - I assume it got better after the first few scenes? I watched the first 7 minutes that had been posted, and that convinced me to skip it this weekend.

Did they at least use the Speed Racer theme song ?

I took my 2 kids and one of their friends to the movie Friday, 2 girls age 7, 1 boy age 5. To my knowledge everyone left happy. Personally I liked the movie, epsecially the begining sequences, I think it could have been a bit shorter, but as it was everything wrapped up nicely. Right now, it's a certain to catch again at the $1 theater, and a high probable purchase on DVD.

Did they at least use the Speed Racer theme song ?

Yes. It was played throughout, but you really had to pay attention to notice it. The full song was played during the end credits.

Somebody elsewhere said:

"If you don't like this movie, you just stabbed your Inner Child."

'Speed Racer' is to 'Blade Runner' what 'Bugsy Malone' is to 'The Godfather.'

"No. It's really not." - PAD

I stand corrected by a well-reasoned, professionally constructed argument. Well played, sir!

You offered a flippant, barely clever response to a 300+ word review, and you're going to hold HIM to task for not being well-reasoned? Logician, heal thyself.

Somebody elsewhere said:

"If you don't like this movie, you just stabbed your Inner Child."

If my 'Inner Child' liked this movie, the lil sumbitch deserved to be stabbed...

Bill Mulligan stated:

"...this probably kills any chance of a WACKY RACERS movie. That would have been great. Yes, I AM serious."

Was WACKY RACERS that Hanna-Barbara racing cartoon from Saturday Mornings of the 1970s where various "teams" of Hanna Barbara characters like the "Dastardlys"(?) compete with Yogi Bear lead teams(?)....I'm getting lost... can anyone else help me out?

Because if you are serious Bill, then are we to believe "Speed Racer" is to "Wacky Racers" what "Chariots of Fire" could be to "The Laff-o-lipics?" ;n)

--Captain Naraht

P.S. Tell me you remember the "Laff-o-lipics"...

The Wacky Races consisted of:

two cavemen in a stone car
A scientist in a gadget laden auto
A german in a WW1 airplane/car
2 GIs in a tank
Penelope Pittstop
her neutered male couterpart
A lumberjack in a car made out of logs
The ant hill mob--midgets who dress like gangsters
The Gruesome twosome- my personal faves, monsters in a traveling haunted house, complete with a dragon
A hillbilly car
And of course dick Dasterdly and Muttley, who were the actual main characters of the show.

It could work, I'm telling you. They might have to work a few more stereotypes in to be more inclusive--a couple of luchadors would be a fine addition, for example--but it could work.

Wouldn't spend $160 million on that theory though.

I guess you can count me as one of the few sci-fi fans who despised Blade Runner. Not because it was "busy", but because it was BORING. It put me (and the friend I was watching with) to sleep.

I know some movies will do that (2001 comes to mind), but I've bothered to take the time to watch Blade Runner since.

I grew up watching SPEED RACER, and have gotten interested in Manga in the last few years, so I got what the movie was trying to accomplish. Furthermore, my entire family liked it as well, including my 5-year-old, who was dancing to the Speed Racer theme song in the aisles when the movie let out...I thought it was a great experiment, and I look forward to seeing it again.

Bill,

Would the "Wacky Races" be related to the cartoon "The Perils of Penelope Pitstop" or is it a rose of a different name that smells as strange?

I remember the "Perils" but not the "Wacky Races"

--Captain Naraht

P.S I am so F@#%$%# old to remember this shit.

I'm still trying to figure out what movie these critics went to see. I had an absolute blast, my wife really enjoyed it, the kids in the front row down from us were really rockin' in their seats to the upbeat Speed Racer theme during the credits, and so far as I'm concerned this movie summer is 2-0 in coolness. That's it, I'm going out to my garage, rummage through the boxes and boxes of stored action figures and find some place in this office to display my Speed figures and the Mach 5.

And I want, want, WANT Michael Giachinno's score. His best since since The Incredibles, hands down!

i think Penelope Pittstop was a spinoff--it also had the anthill mob, but the villain was voiced by Paul Lynde, if I remember correctly.

Wacky Races---7 issues, Gold Key, 1969-72. Does that help explain why it is so hard to remember it?

Laff-A-Lympics---13 issues, Marvel, 1978-9. 30 years ago.

Patrick Calloway, did you even see the movie?

Tell me you remember the "Laff-o-lipics"...

I can't say I remember those, but how about "Animalympics"? A staple of early-80s HBO subscribers, that one -- and really quite good, I think.

As for the original topic of this post, I never really saw the appeal of the original Speed Racer series, so have little to no attachment to the film. Glad PAD enjoyed it, though.

TWL

"No. It's really not." is the succinct four word post James McClain felt was lacking in persuasive power. I think he was right about that. It is not an argument, but an appeal to authority. The initial post made two things very clear: that PAD thinks "Speed Racer" is very good, and that he is perplexed that many critics disagree. It does not make any persuasive argument that he is right and they are wrong.

My 11 year old son and I LOVED Speed Racer. We're going again, and we're taking mom this time.

Just an FYI background on the original manga:

The title was never "Speed Racer." It was "Mach Go,Go,Go!" Mach in Japanese is pronounced "MA-ha"--anything in Japanese with a "-ch" at the end is transliterated being pronounced "ha"--which is why Johan Sebastian Bach's last name is pronounced "BA-ha"

So the title was "MA-ha Go,Go,Go" which in itself was a pun,of sorts:
Go was Speed Racer's first name
Go in Japanese is the number 5, hence the number of the car
The final Go was, well, GO!

Just a little background on the character for y'all...

The Perils of Penelope Pitstop was a spin-off from Wacky Races, but it wasn’t a direct spin-off. It had a rather odd creation and set up. One of the guys I went through academy with got both shows on DVD for his wife and their young daughter a few years ago. Pitstop seemed to have an odd habit of every episode (or at least those that I saw over at there place only, so I could be wrong) starting out with a recap of the last episode. The last episode that it recapped never existed though. It always jumped into the “peril” part while bypassing any of the story needed to get there.

And I’m pretty sure that Bill remembers correctly about Paul Lynde. That’s a hard voice to hear and misidentify.

I haven’t seen Speed Racer, so I can’t speak for the film’s quality. I can however speak on the critics. Screw ‘em. I stopped paying attention to most critics some time ago precisely because of stuff like this. I’d see critics ripping something apart that I liked, my friends liked, my coworkers liked and most the people I saw blogging liked. I decided years ago that The Simpsons nailed the mindset of many movie critics dead on with the episode where Homer worked as a food critic. Many of them almost seem as if they feel that they have rip something apart to be doing their job properly. Then on the flipside there are the ones who seem to like everything and are equally useless.

If I think I’ll like it, I’ll take my chances. If I don’t think I’ll like it but a lot of people who I know and trust say it’s good (Iron Man) then I’ll give it a chance. If the local critic says it’s awful, I have no idea. I quit reading him years ago.

I enjoyed the film immensely and plan on seeing it again and getting the soundtrack. I still can't believe it only grossed $20 million over the weekend. I didn't think it would beat Iron Man but I figured it would do $40-50 million. Maybe it will do better this weekend as there are no big films opening.

"I suspect a majority of the people you know don't have a beef with the Wachowskis. Hollywood thrives on two things: Taking glee in the success of unknowns, and taking even more glee in the failure of people who are successful. Ridley Scott made the critically acclaimed "The Duelists" and the financial smash-hit "Alien." I suspect plenty of people were itching to see him take a fall, and when a visionary film that a lot of people didn't "get" came out, they seized the opportunity. I think we're seeing a replay of that now."

Critics don't have a "beef" with the Wachowskis, either. Why would a critic WANT a filmmaker(s) to make a bad film, especially if they enjoyed their work in the past? It's also presumptuous to assume that critics didn't "get" Speed Racer, just because they didn't like it.

I'd take that bet, Peter. Speed Racer is an incredible experience. I have no doubt future filmmakers will mine it for its visual treasures, but I don't think it will be revered for its ingenuity and style like Bladerunner.

Visual tech has just become so prevalent in film (and video games) that today's audience expects each movie to out digital the last. We don't wonder about the craft like we did in 1982. Yes, we can still be wowed by experiences like Speed Racer, but I doubt anyone will look back on that film with any kind of special appreciation. We'll all just be looking forward to the next screen candy.

I saw it in IMAX with my Wife (we are both in our mid 30's) and we loved it as did the whole audience.
Considering the source material (of which I am a huge fan) I thought they made the best possible movie. Great inside jokes and sight gags that really paid homage to the best of the cartoon while updating it for todays audiences. It really is a kids movie (with a great family message) but has guns and an anti-corporate message some adults can get behind.. ;)

Mike

Peter I usually find myself fully in agreement with your opinions but in this case I really have to wonder what you were smoking!

'Blade Runner' had a great script, great acting and real depth to it. 'Speed Racer' has none of those things and exists for no other reason that to sell toys; and thankfully for once the public didn't fall for it.

So Simon's claim that this movie exists just to sell toys is silly. If he had read any of the backstory on the Wachowski Brother's journey to make this movie he'd know that this was very personal for them.

Comparing it to Blade Runner is a tad Over The Top though.

I was vastly entertained...Roger Averall is the new Tim Curry.

It would be nice if those without bias (I am excluding certain shrouded individuals here since I would never expect my postings to get a fair shake from such) would reread my original post. I am not comparing it to "Blade Runner" in terms of its overall quality. So those who are stridently asserting that "Blade Runner" is the superior film are wasting their time. I am comparing it to "Blade Runner" in terms of its reception and in terms of how the visual stylings are likely going to impact on the next generations of film makers.

Simon: Have you actually read any of the background on how the film was made? Because if so you would realize that the affection for the source material, and the desire to make a family film, was the motivation for the filmmakers involved. Have you actually seen the movie itself?

PAD

Now I want to see Speed Racer not for the comparison of its reception and visual precociousness to Blade Runner but because I really like Bugsy Malone.

Speaking as a shrouded individual, the comparison that PAD draws between "Speed Racer" and "Blade Runner" is accurate. Both movies are much less popular than the filmmakers would have wished. It seemed he was also drawing a comparison between their (as he sees it) overall quality, but I must take him at his word that he was not.

Apparently, here is the situation. Many critics don't like the film, but PAD does. Some posters here think film critics are a terrible bunch, daring to disagree with their own beliefs or to buck public opinion. I think that is short-sighted. Critics should apply their own well-reasoned standards, rather than being cheerleaders.

Gotta say, I wasn;t planning on seeing this movie until reading this and given the rough day at work on Monday (yesterday), I needed silly fun. And, boy, did I get it! Sure, it's not perfect and the effects make the Star Wars prequels look like they were shot on location but it was fun. In fact, my main complaint would be that the kids in the theatre enjoyed it TOO much. They wouldn't stop hooting and hollering during the Spridel (sp) and chim chim scenes and the fight scenes had most of them up and cheering. I enjoyed Iron Man and Forbidden Kingdom a lot more than it but I can see some of PAD's point. I think this one will grow in acceptance and popularity.

Oh, and I don't really like Blade Runner. I still find it drags and is just dull. I care little for the characters and only just recently tried it again. I give it a shot with each new "version". Still didn't like it.

The original Star Wars came out 31 years ago. You'd have to be around 45 years old, maybe 50, to fully realize how astounding the special effects were at the time. It was truly a groundbreaking movie. As a story, it is rather ordinary, having been based on ideas from popular science fiction and the pulps. It's all well done enough, but the special effects have elevated it to the status of being one of the most important films of its time.

If you don't live in and experience a culture as it happens, you do not really understand how much certain things affect that culture. Using hindsight, you can see that the effect was massive, but you can never feel the impact the same way as those who were there.

Citizen Kane is one of the all-time great movies. As I have read (I wasn't alive then), it used techniques not really used before, and had a huge impact on how movies were made. Star Wars was equally important (even though not of the same quality). Peter David says Blade Runner was hugely important. Perhaps Speed Racer is also as important. Only time will tell.
==========
(Disclaimer about Blade Runner---I didn't see it in the theater. I was unemployed at the time, and couldn't afford the movies. I therefore have no idea how the movie was received at the time.)

The original Star Wars came out 31 years ago. You'd have to be around 45 years old, maybe 50, to fully realize how astounding the special effects were at the time. It was truly a groundbreaking movie. As a story, it is rather ordinary, having been based on ideas from popular science fiction and the pulps. It's all well done enough, but the special effects have elevated it to the status of being one of the most important films of its time.

Well, I was twenty when it came out, so I certainly remember the impact it had. Here's the interesting thing: Reaction at industry screenings was muted to say the least (Martin Scorsese, if I'm remembering correctly, who was Lucas' mentor, was downright hostile.) No one expected the thunderous reception it received.

And I still remember the story I was told a few years ago by a studio exec about the 20th Century Fox lawyer who boasted in the mid 1970s how he had saved the studio about fifty grand because he had let that dumb Lucas keep the merchandising rights for his silly little space movie. One billion dollars later...

Anyway, what amused me over the reception that "Phantom Menace" received was that people bitched about the poorly written script, the wooden acting, and the lousy directing, and the only saving grace was that the effects were amazing. And I laughed because that was exactly the case with the original, except back then--as Alan correctly says--no one had ever seen anything like those effects, and so it covered a myriad of sins.

PAD

Hmmm. Well, I suspect that Harrison Ford's Han Solo was another factor in the original trilogy's success, too.

I'd go with more than just Ford -- the original SW was gifted with a number of actors who could rise above their material pretty well, including Guinness and Cushing. (I've thought for years that Cushing's delivery of one of Tarkin's final lines -- "Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!" -- did a beautiful job of encapsulating the entire character.)

That said, I certainly see PAD's point about the parallels.

TWL

While I agree that first "Star Wars" movie suffered from flawed writing, I believe people don't give the script enough credit. The "ordinary" story was cast from mythic archetypes that still strike a chord with most of us to this day. As I understand it, this wasn't by accident: Lucas studied many of those archetypes before writing the story. Despite much of the bad dialogue and other flaws in the story, it grabs people because we still respond to King Arthur & Merlin, the Black Knight, the handsome rogue who is naughty on the surface but moral at his core, etc. etc.

I believe the prequels were less well-received in large part because they provided an unnecessary backstory. The beauty of these archetypes, when done well, is that you don't have to go into great expository detail in order to employ them in a story.

Re: Speed Racer, I'm on the fence about this one. I loathed the cartoon as a kid. It's not worth going into why -- I reacted to it as a kid should: like a kid.

I think I'll wait to hear feedback from friends of mine who see it before making my choice. The source material may not hold a place in my heart, a good film is a good film regardless of where it came from.

I'm on the fence about Speed Racer, too. I've only seen the cartoon a few times (back when they showed it on MTV), but I loved what I saw of it (enough to actually buy a Speed Racer watch when I was college). But the trailers really turned me off, and The Matrix Reloaded soured me on the Wachowskis. And of course there are the bad reviews. But a small part of me kind of wants to see it, even though I'll probably hate it.

And let's not forget the importance of the John Williams score to the success of Star Wars. Seriously, I could read my grocery list to a John Williams score, and it would sound dramatic and urgent and full of passion. That score sold the mythic depth of the plot in a way that the dialogue could never have carried off on its own, no matter who was delivering the lines.

I like d Speed Racer.

Still don't like Blade runner.

I don't think whether someone likes "Blade Runner" or not is all that relevant. Like it or not, it had a huge visual impact on subsequent filmmakers. Writers can say to producers, "Picture a Blade Runner-esque future," or directors can say, for instance, to a scenic designer, "I'm going for a dystopian Blade Runner look" and it will immediately be understood.

And I'm saying that I think down the line you're going to see films that have a direct lineage to "Speed Racer" in terms of their storytelling. I'm not even necessarily talking about stuff like the car races. There's one sequence, for instance, in which there are simply two men standing completely still in a room talking to each other, but the camera moves nonstop in a horizontal pan that keeps overlapping the two speakers in different positions. It was amazing. There is a storytelling vibrancy and sense of envelope pushing that renders "I liked it/I didn't like it" moot insofar as the future of filmmaker is concerned; I'm saying "Speed Racer" has a sense of visual urgency unlike anything before and I think you're going to see more of it.

Just to give a context: "Space Odyssey" bores the living crap out of me. I think it's obsessed with its own pretentiousness. But it had an undeniable impact on the legacy of SF films and a place in history that makes whether I liked it or not pretty much beside the point, unless it's a question of, "Hey, Peter, they're running a retrospective at a local cinema and "2001" is first up, do you want to come?"

PAD

I have to agree with Peter a 100%. I actually enjoyed it as much if not more than Iron Man, and the final moments of the Grand Prix race created such a euphoric mix of sound, emotion, and visuals that I almost choked on my own glee. A fantastic movie and a stunning accomplishment. I found the Matrix sequels as incompetent and boring as anyone and can admit that I didn't want to do to this movie. I'm glad I did.

I really wonder how Speed Racer will be received in countries where the original cartoon has never aired. Which is, IIRC, most of Europe. In France, we never saw it on TV, to the best of my knowledge (I was away from french TV for two years in the seventies, so maybe it aired then). It wasn't part of the big manga invasion that started in the seventies with Grendizer/Goldorak. And frankly, the trailer didn't do much to sell the movie to me.

BTW, saw Iron Man, and loved it. Mainly because of the main actors. Worth seeing it for Robert Downey Jr.'s prestation, and the loveliness of Gwineth Paltrow.

Another thing Star Wars had going for it was a certain "bounce".

I'm looking at you, Carrie. Boy, am I looking at you.

I saw Speed Racer a second time today. I wanted to see if it held up to another viewing, and I wanted to see if there was anything I missed during All That Pizzazz. It did, and I didn't miss too much the first time.

This is the first movie I have seen twice in the theater since Tim Burton's Batman. (I had wanted to see the first Kill Bill a second time, but got busy and then it was gone.)

I saw this yesterday, a Monday matinee showing, and was put off at first by a number of factors.

It reached its zenith in the scenere wherein, while Speed is clashing with the big corporate guy, Spridle and Chim Chim are zipping around teh building in a golf-cart, scattering computer-generated Segway-riding corporate drones in their wake. It was ludicrous. I scowled. Then I thought, "Waitaminute! This is what the cartoon was like!" And I just got it. "Speed Racer" is the old cartoon with live actors.

So, send in a critic who doesn't remember the cartoon, and you're going to get a nonsensical review. GIGO. No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.

...I suspect that Harrison Ford's Han Solo was another factor in the original trilogy's success, too.

Han Solo's story, at least in the first movie, is a lot like Rick Blaine's in Casablanca. They're both hiding out among refugees from universal war. It's a story that I think could have saved Redford's Lions for Lambs (re: the student whose passion Redford tries to ignite, more on the drama of escapism as the virtual refuge from dealing with US imperialism).

Alan Coil:"Another thing Star Wars had going for it was a certain "bounce".
I'm looking at you, Carrie. Boy, am I looking at you."

Yeah, but that wasn't really there in force until the metal bikini. I still can't believe how big that thing has gotten. Who would have guessed back then that, of all things Star Wars, Leia's Metal Bikini would have become almost a fan cult and earned its own website?

[i]No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.[/i]

So now the movie isn't allowed to stand on its own?
That's pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don't you think?

And not very good storytelling.

No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.

So now the movie isn't allowed to stand on its own?
That's pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don't you think?

And not very good storytelling.

I suspect you're going to see tricks from "Speed Racer" showing up in other films in the next years, and it's going to be one of those movies in which, years from now, film students are going to be seeing the basis for many subsequent films.

You mean, like how everybody attributes "bullet time" to The Matrix, even though the actual visual effect predated that particular Wachowski bros. film? ;)

I hated the cartoon, and I cringed when I read that they were turning it into a movie. But even I'm shocked that it did so poorly for its opening weekend. Hopefully it will be enough to discourage them from doing a sequel.

Craig, what other movies did "bullet time" first? I'm not doubting you, just wondering. As I recall, the first time I saw it was in those great old GAP jean ads (probably directed by Michel Gondry since he seems to have directed all of my favorite commercials.0 where the people were dancing.

I still give Matrix cred for using the technique better than anyone else did and having it actually make sense, as opposed to, say, HOUSE OF THE DEAD, which just used it for the sake of using it, among its many other cinematic crimes against God and Nature.

First some context... I was a Speed Racer addict as a kid. I must have watched on average an episode a day between the ages of 3 and 7, so to say I'm biased to having a positive reaction to Speed Racer would be an understatement.

My girlfriend and I (we're both 26) were very excited to see it in IMAX. Luckily, we both allow ourselves to have fun and I can leave my cynicism at the door, because we really enjoyed the movie.

Our main difference of opinion was she thought Matthew Fox was really good (but she's admittedly biased), while I'm still not sure if he was too flat or not, like he was trying to play cool but missing the mark. However, Racer X is above Batman in my personal pantheon of "cool" heroes, and I realize it's tough to live up to the imagination of the 4 year old in me.

Speaking of imagination, I think that's one of the strengths of the movie. They took care to show lay over animations as extensions of children's/adults imaginations. With the crayon drawings at the beginning of young Speed. The adult Speed's image of his brother's ghost. And later on Sprydle's (a name which I don't think has any standardized spelling) fighting visions, which were set up well with the television show to be used later in the rally fight scenes.

Special effects are too often used just to make things "look real", I prefer this style where it used to support/enhance the "vision" of the characters and directors.

As for the plot and pacing, I think the story was very good translation of what have been told over the course of a couple seasons of the show. It was very considerate of the source material, I loved that they included a rally race and the wheel buttons.

Anyway, long and short of it is, I had fun and I don't care if that makes me seem foolish/geeky.

Speed Racer is so Spy Kids, but his esthetic should be so. I wanted to see Japanese actors.

"You mean, like how everybody attributes "bullet time" to The Matrix, even though the actual visual effect predated that particular Wachowski bros. film? ;)"

"Craig, what other movies did "bullet time" first? I'm not doubting you, just wondering. As I recall, the first time I saw it was in those great old GAP jean ads (probably directed by Michel Gondry since he seems to have directed all of my favorite commercials.0 where the people were dancing."

I know that Woo-ping Yuen (who worked on the Matrix) and others did tricks like the bullet time effect in Hong Kong action and fantasy films for some time prior to that film, but the thing wasn't quite as polished and didn't use bullets or the streaming effect behind them. You would see an effect very much like it with an arrow or group of arrows being fired at a hero or mystically inclined villain and it was much the same but with less "Hollywoodized" CGI support in the FX. I think it's safer to say that, rather than inventing it, Wachowski bros. took something that existed before and, depending on your POV, polished/perfected/modernized it. Or screwed it up as one friend of mine sees it.

Leviathan: No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.
Luigi Novi: Somehow I doubt that the filmmakers--or any competent filmmaker for that matter--would impose such a limitation on the potential audience for their film. A good chunk of the people going to see this film probably haven't seen the series, and they are perfectly qualified to judge it. It's their money they paying to see it, and no notice has been given that seeing the series is required before seeing the film to understand it. If the film doesn't stand on its own merits, then it has failed as a narrative/creative effort.

Bill Mulligan: What other movies did "bullet time" first?
Luigi Novi: I remember thinking at the time The Matrix came out how odd it was that everyone made such a big deal about that effect that they were satirizing it, when I had seen it used in at least a few other things already, but the only one I can recall offhand is in the opening title and interstitial sequences of The Howard Stern Show on E! network.

I don't know why it didn't occur to me before, but I looked it up at Wikipedia, and there's a list of works that used the effect both prior to and since The Matrix, but those much older ones used different technology to achieve look similar to what is used today for Bullet Time, as the effect can be achieved with other techniques like pure CGI and motion capture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time

The thing about "Bullet Time" that The Matrix was first at was motion. Yes, others had used the frozen moment effect (the Gap commercials, and Wing Commander), but they were moments in which the camera moved around a frozen moment, With The Matrix, it expanded to more of a relative time, and made the effect much more dynamic than what had come before.

I think the test of how good this film is, will be if it is on the NSW Higher School Cerificate English curriculum - "Blade Runner" is.

No critic is qualified to review this movie unless they have watched and understood the old cartoon series.

So now the movie isn't allowed to stand on its own?
That's pretty limiting for a $150 million price tag, don't you think?

I don't know that I agree with the initial sentiment, but I think it's important to distinguish between "critic" and "reviewer."

A reviewer need not have seen the original series. A reviewer is the guy who goes, sees the film, says, "I saw it, here's what it's about, Here's why I think it is/isn't worth your money." The typical crap you see on the internet--"I read it, here's a spoiler-laden description, I thought it sucked"--is a review.

A critic, on the other hand, should have a more expansive knowledge of the subject matter. He should be able to put the film into some sort of context, judging against others of its type. I would have to think that a critic would need to be familiar with the origins of the material in order to assess whether the film's creators succeeded in their goal to create a live-action version of the original series while simultaneously producing a film that works on its own.

PAD

Re: Bullet Time: one thing The Matrix did well was that this effect was used as a part of the story, and not just as a ool effect tacked on a movie, as it has been used so many times before and since then. In other words, there was a reason for it to be there. Reason that didn't exist in movies like Die Another Day, or the documentary Walking With (Prehistoric) Beasts.

Re: Bullet Time: one thing The Matrix did well was that this effect was used as a part of the story, and not just as a cool effect tacked on a movie, as it has been used so many times before and since then. In other words, there was a reason for it to be there. Reason that didn't exist in movies like Die Another Day, or the documentary Walking With (Prehistoric) Beasts.

I haven't seen the film...but I really liked a friend's description after seeing it at the Imax theater... She said she walked out feeling like she was going to vomit a rainbow. :)

I just saw the movie last night and I LOVED it. I cannot say I was a fan of the old "Mach Go, Go, Go" series, but it did bring a lot memories back. And there was a good, solid, family message there.

Yeah, it was 'cartoony'. It was BASED on a cartoon!!!

Duh.

I just saw the movie last night and I LOVED it. I cannot say I was a fan of the old "Mach Go, Go, Go" series, but it did bring a lot memories back. And there was a good, solid, family message there.

Yeah, it was 'cartoony'. It was BASED on a cartoon!!!

Duh.

"I still give Matrix cred for using the technique better than anyone else did and having it actually make sense"

Nah, there's really no way that effect makes sense. It always seemed like a silly gimmick to me.

Oh, and I believe Buffalo '66 used it before The Matrix did.

Well, the whole thing was taking place in a virtual reality world so it made sense to me that things like gravity and time and stuff would operate under rules not found in our own reality. Or Maybe I just like seeing Trinity kick ass.

The "bullet time" effect did make sense in the context of "The Matrix." The Matrix was a computer program, and those who understood that could manipulate the program to an extent. Neo, by virtue of being "The One," could do it better than anyone else.

This reminds me of when people complain that the Ewoks in "Jedi" were "unrealistic." If one can suspend one's disbelief in order to accept talking robots, Jawas, Wookies, Yoda, light sabers, Death Stars, the Force, etc., I don't see how Ewoks should be any more difficult to accept.

There were a lot of parts of Speed Racer that were very annoying (specifically with that annoying little kid), I do respect what the Wachowski brothers did as far as cinematography went. While the movie wasn't always successful, I applaud the effort.

Bladerunner on the other hand, I never understood what all the fuss was about.

You know what? I'm amazed that PAD hasn't taken us all top task over not pointing out an early example of a "bullet time" type of FX since he enjoyed this film himself and later wrote two of its sequels.

Trancers.

The Wachowskis are clearly trying to recreate the original series in a way that goes way beyond simply re-imagining the characters and situations. They're trying to present for us the "look & feel" of the old series and its narrative and visual tricks and ticks.

How do you judge the success of that effort without knowing and understanding what the filmmakers are trying to recreate?

Anybody can sit in the theater and decide whether they like it or not. But a critic who is going to judge the movie as a "Work of Art" in some academic or critical context is unqualified to do so unless he or she has, first and foremost, an understanding of what the film is attempting.

It's such a huge element of "Speed Racer" that that understanding is crucial.

But, Leviathan...it is actually a failing of the movie, not the critic/reviewer. Outside of sequel/prequels, your ability to watch/understand a film should never be dependent on knowledge of the source material. I should not have to know who Iron Man is to follow the movie. I should NOT have to know anything about Speed Racer to be able to make a critical assessment of whether the film itself is any good. If you have to have knowledge of the Speed Racer cartoon to simply enjoy Speed Racer the movie? It's automatically a fail. Prior knowledge can enhance one's enjoyment...but the minute it becomes required? Then the movie doesn't work.

Ewoks = Giant Hamsters. Very tasty. Yum!

Bill-as to Ewoks...it was not an issue of "realistic" to me, so much as "kind of annoying." :)

The first use of "bullet time" I remember coming across was in the opening titles of the original Speed Racer cartoon. Right at the end of the sequence, Speed leaps from the Mach 5 and freezes as the animation does a pan around the character.

"What a cool effect," I remember thinking at the time...

"The "bullet time" effect did make sense in the context of "The Matrix." The Matrix was a computer program, and those who understood that could manipulate the program to an extent. Neo, by virtue of being "The One," could do it better than anyone else."

I never really thought of the effect as literally taking place the way we see it. But if it does, I'm not sure what tactical advantage jumping up and momentarily freezing in mid-air could possibly have. And does Trinity really have that much control over the Matrix? She's not the One, after all.

@Thom: "Bill-as to Ewoks...it was not an issue of "realistic" to me, so much as "kind of annoying." :)"

Fair enough -- although it's worth remembering that Lucas was aiming the film at children as well as adults. I was 15 or 16 when "Jedi" came out, so the Ewoks didn't do much for me, either. Little kids, I suspect, were more fond of them.

**********SPOILER WARNING***********************

@Robert Fuller: "I never really thought of the effect as literally taking place the way we see it."

Good point. I was thinking in more general terms -- i.e. it made sense that someone could manipulate the V.R. if they were aware of it. Some of the specific stuff was probably there because it looked cool. Since it didn't detract from the story, I've no problem with that.

@Robert Fuller: "And does Trinity really have that much control over the Matrix?"

As I understood it, Trinity and Morpheus were really good at it, but Neo was better. Remember, Neo did things even they couldn't do, like his "Superman" bit.

I have to say, I have a higher opinion of parts two and three of the Matrix than most people here. Part two, admittedly, was padded with "filler," like the Merovingian and his pseudo-philosophical babble. Also, the end was handled horribly -- the dramatic reveal in the last shot goes by so quickly you don't know who the hell you're looking at unless you're watching on DVD and use freeze-frame (which I did).

I enjoyed part 3, though. Neo became a Christ-like character, and in the end, it was an act of sacrifice rather than an act of ass-kicking that ended the cycle of war between the machines and the humans. It's not a new theme, but was handled enjoyable (at least for me) nevertheless.

I have to agree with Bill Myers (and hope that disturbing fact doesn't make him reconsider). I thought Matrix 2 was slightly disappointing and 3 quite extraordinary. It may be that some of those unhappy with the last two thirds of the trilogy were upset that everything that seemed like an answer or a solution in part 1 was rejected in 2 and 3. In part 1, I had the feeling that this COULD happen, and in 2-3 that I couldn't be sure it WASN'T happening all around us.

PAD said, "A reviewer need not have seen the original series. A reviewer is the guy who goes, sees the film, says, "I saw it, here's what it's about, Here's why I think it is/isn't worth your money.".... A critic, on the other hand, should have a more expansive knowledge of the subject matter...."

Then I guess that when I was writing my movie reviews back in 1994 and 1995, I had one foot in both camps, because I would summarize a movie and provide my arguments for why I thought it was or wasn't worth seeing; but in most cases, I'd also bring up obvious or probable influences, either because I already knew them or because I did some library research.

In one instance, I compared and contrasted similar "bad guy" characters in two films then in theaters. I wrote something like "the character of 'Smith' seemed unrealistic. 'John Jacob Jingleheimer-Schmidt' did a more believable job with his similar character of 'Jones' in last month's Attack of the Bad Guys.

I haven't seen the Speed Racer movie, and am only vaguely familiar with the TV series. I may have occasionally stumbled upon an episode, but that would have been a long time ago, and I know next to nothing about the characters or the back story.

So, if I were reviewing Speed Racer, I'd discuss the film on its own merits, then I'd research the TV series, and include relevant information about it in my review.

A hypothetical example: "While retaining most of the light-hearted fun of the original series, the movie also adds a bit of 1960s-era Marvel Comics angst, but more importantly gives the viewer more of a reason to care about the characters. Those who saw the TV series will appreciate the connection; but those who didn't won't feel left out."

Then I'd give my grade.

Rick

I liked part 3 of The Matrix just fine but I thought part two really did nothing much for the story. All setup, little payoff and lots of padding. Morpheus, who was the coolest character in the first movie not named Trinity, seemed a whole lot less interesting, just lost in the crowd. Few of the Zion characters were interesting. The action didn't seem to have a purpose. It works better when viewing part 3 immediately afterward but that wasn't something we could do when it came out. Part 2 left a bad taste in the mouths of critics that spilled over to the superior part 3 and has dogged the brothers ever since.

(Maybe even more than the critic-hate for the Wachowskis is the fact that joel Silver produced it and a lot of Hollywood folk LOVE it when he fails.)

I guess my husband and I just don't get what all the fuss is about with this movie. Now we loved Ironman, but we love Starship Troopers too.
Occasionally, I swear I never get what all the publicity is about with certain movies. I know that some movies are technically impressive (Matrix comes to mind as some have said earlier) and that we'll see ripples for some time. I feel like movies like Blade Runner had a message, a purpose. I don't feel that Speed Racer has the same intention. And I know that summer blockbusters aren't really supposed to have meaning.
On a side note, I've just started watching Babylon 5 again after being introduced to it a few years ago. When it came out (PAD, no offense intended, I've reevaluated my view...) that I felt like it was a ripoff of my wonderful sweet Star Trek: TNG and I didn't want to dignify it with my attention. It took a very persistent ex-boyfriend to get me to sit down and watch with him (he almost had to hold me down the first night). After that, I was enthralled, the stories were different, grittier than Star Trek and more real in some ways. Now I adore them both for different reasons. Maybe in time, I'll see Speed Racer the same way.

Tim Lynch: Animalympics? You mean the movie starring Billy Crystal, Gilda Radner, and Harry Shearer? That featured work from the creator of Tron, the writer of the Lion King and the future god of animation, Brad Bird?

That one? Never heard of it.:) ..or spent the past month making a fan DVD of it:)

Scav,

Tell me more about this fan DVD of which you speak!

TWL

Reports are that after it's second weekend, "Speed Racer" is definitely a box-office bomb. Which is a shame. have not yey seen the movie, but I feel PAD is likely correct, that though the film did not get the audience it was hoping for - whether the cause be marketing failure, Wachowski-haters, etc. - that if the visuals are as incredible as they seemed in trailer - and which the critics I have seen even admit, sometimes as a reason for DISLIKING the film - then it likely will see influence down the road of a proportion far superior to it's box-office take.
Also, why do some, if they don't like something, wish for it to not exist? Why, Craig, would you "cringe" at the announcement of the film and hope that the poor showing will prevent them from doing a sequel? If you're not going to see it anyway, why would you care if the studio and the Wachowskis made another movie for the people that enjoyed it and themselves? It's the same type of mindset hat has people posting stuff like "For the love of God, why are they giving Spider-Girl another shot?" or "How many chances are they going to give "Manhunter". Just because certain people don't read them, they obviously have SOME readers who appreciate them, so why moan about them being another choice on the shelves?
Okay. End of rant. I just don't understand the negativity.

In was interesting to hear PAD bring "Space Odyssey" into the mix. While I quite liked "Speed Racer" after the film I made the comment to some friends that I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the ad campaign and word-of-mouth take the same route at "2001" did when first at the box office.

If you're to believe the stories around it that movie gained a huge following as a psychedelic film and I could see "Speed" going the same way. I think even the ad campaing for "2001" hopped on the bandwagon to (re)market the film in that fashion.

Hi.

Very late to the thread, but just saw the movie today.

It's not as bad as the critic say it is. It's not great, but it is fun at times. I was grinning during the mountaintop fight and the final race. I don't regret having paid to see it.

That said, I doubt it's going to have the kind of influence PAD thinks it will. Judging by the people I know, something like Children of Men will have an influence, or There Will Be Blood. The films of the Coen Brothes, definitely. Sin City, too, if you want to talk about green screen movies. Speed Racer seems like a flash in the pan in comparison.

Just basing this on the several people I know, or whose work I've seen, who hope to be working filmmakers someday. I could, of course, be wrong.

And I'd add that I actually don't like Sin City, but did have fun at Speed Racer, so, I don't mean to be jerky or contrarian. (Though I have to ask, that shot where the camera kept panning past the two guys talking - PAD, you found that to be amazing and visually urgent? No offense, just... huh.)

Way late to the party. Just a few comments . . .

Thoroughly enjoyed the film and only wish I had seen it opening night with a crowd. It really deserved a better reception than it got. I wonder how it will go over in Japan.

I do not believe that familiarity with the source material is required to enjoy the film, but realization that you're actually watching a cartoon with flesh and blood actors is.

That said, as someone who watched and enjoyed the cartoon in my younger days, it was virtually perfect as a SPEED RACER adaptation. The wonderfully over-the-top start of the rally race (the queen of the desert nation fires the starter flare pistol from the roof of her palace upon first sight of the sun over the horizon) made me laugh out loud and grin like a doof because that was so dead-on crazy accurate to the tone of the cartoon.

And Pops Racer's comment "It's terrible what passes for a ninja nowadays" should belong in every geek's quote file.