Originally Posted By jdub Well, the good news is, it can't help but be better than the "Mister Magoo" movie.
Originally Posted By jdub Saw it, & I guess I was right about at least THAT much. Posted my concise thoughts on the "What movie did you JUST SEE?" topic.
Originally Posted By DAR I saw it. It was okay nothing too special. If I was ten I'd have loved it. And it's going to look spectatcular on blu ray.
Originally Posted By mawnck Loved every last second of it, much to my surprise. Seriously. I could've watched it all day. I'll even be buying the Blu-Ray. I can understand why most viewers might find it tiresome, especially if they don't like the blatantly self-conscious visual style, which makes no apologies for being intrusive as heck. It's long, loud, and aggressively colorful. I'm not even sure I could have handled it in IMAX. But if you can enjoy craaaazy visuals without getting too distracted by them, and you loved the trailer, then the whole rest of the movie - even the Warner Brothers logo at the beginning - is JUST like it, and you should ignore the critics and go see it. If you didn't like the trailer, stay far away. One obscene gesture, one monkey-poo toss, a few mild wordy dirds, and some kung-fu sequences, otherwise safe for kids who aren't prone to light-induced seizures. Disclaimers: (1) I'm a sucker for eye candy, and will cut a movie quite a bit of slack if it can keep me interested visually. (My favorite animated feature of all time is Sleeping Beauty, and I'll be the first to tell you that its script sucks.) (2) I watched "Feherlofia" a couple months ago, and the "look" of Speed Racer is tame by comparison. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cRfmAMdIeM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...fmAMdIeM</a> (3) Unlike most of the reviewers whose reviews I've read, I had no problem following the races or the story. I would make a snide remark about Will Ferrell, Family Guy, and brain rot, but I'd probably just get flamed. (4) I find that folks (especially movie reviewers of a certain age) who have cherished memories of old animated TV shows tend to get very bent out of shape with any new movie adaptation that varies just a teeny bit from their rosy-colored childhood memories of the original. (See the excellent CGI remake of TMNT, for example.) I am not one of these people. In fact, I thought the flick was VERY true to the spirit, though not necessarily the look, of the original. YMMV. (See what I did there? Speed Racer? Cars? YMMV? Oh never mind.)
Originally Posted By mickeymeg I just saw this last night. We went in having very low expectations and not thinking it would be much more than eye candy. Boy were we wrong ! I loved it ! I watched quite a few of the cartoons as a kid, but would not have considered myself a hardcore fan. I think the movie did a fantastic job of capturing the spirit of the cartoon in real life. The visuals and sound track were perfect in my opinion. I can not wait for it to come out on blu ray. If there were not a whole bunch of movies I want to see about to come out then I would definitely see it in theatre a second time.
Originally Posted By brotherdave I still haven't seen it yet, but would like to, just for nostalgic curiosity and a 10 year old son who LOVES fast race cars. Possibly this weekend, if it's still playing! Unfortunately, most of America doesn't seem interested. The movie really tanked this weekend coming in at a distant 2nd place at only $20 million. It looks like Speed is going to be a major flop at the box office considering all the hype it's received.
Originally Posted By jdub LOL, "tanking" at #2 against "Iron Man," every other moviemaker out there would like such problems! The issue, though, is the huge gap of QUALITY between the two. The "Speed Racer" producers spent so much money on effects and a few big names, that the forgot to pick up a script on the way to the shoot.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 LOL, "tanking" at #2 against "Iron Man," every other moviemaker out there would like such problems! The << Actually it finished a distant third, WB fudged the numbers, basically lying about how much it made just to make it look like it beat out "What Happens in Vegas" then when the actuals came out they were like "my bad" when they knew as shown above, that people only read the estimates and take them as fact.
Originally Posted By dshyates What is going to be the real newz on this one is the recoup. Cost vs. earnings. This may be the biggest spread ever. A $120 million movie that pulls in $20.2 million its opening weekend isn't good. I like the spread on "What Happens in Vegas". I cost $35 million to make and made $20 million its opening weekend.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 OK, time to clear this up once and for all, Speed Racer did not make 20.2 million this past weekend, WB lied to try and save face, in actuality Speed Racer made $18,561,337 while What Happens in Vegas made $20,172,474. Speed Racer is a huge bomb, and the fact it is self destructing overseas doesn't bode well at all for this movie even coming close to breaking even.
Originally Posted By dshyates They were actually talking about the "adjustment" of the estimate on MSNBC just now. They were taking some funny jabs. And pointing out that its going up against Narnia next weekend which is expected to have a >$65 mil opening weekend. They said its not going to be pretty.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>the forgot to pick up a script on the way to the shoot.<< A very restrictive way to look at movie making.
Originally Posted By dshyates Who needs a script when you got CGI? King Kong proves the two don't mix. It turns it into a 6 hour snooze fest of EYE CANDY, yadda, yadda, yadda, EYE CANDY, Yadda, yadda, yadda, EYE CANDY.... Now if they can figure out a way to actually use CGI while people are talking they may eventually need a script. In eye candy terms though this one turned out to be the Extreme Sour Atomic Warhead.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's a listing of movie budgets. If you scroll down Speed Racer is number 6(5) on list of biggest bombs ever. <a href="http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php" target="_blank">http://www.the-numbers.com/mov...gets.php</a>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 DAR, they seriously underestimated the budget on that site, with marketing they say it cost WB closer to 200 million.
Originally Posted By mawnck WilliamK99 - Did the Wachowski brothers beat up your dog or something? I can tell you're pleased as punch that Warner Bros. is taking a bath on it, but really now. It's just a movie. ;-D
Originally Posted By DAR <<DAR, they seriously underestimated the budget on that site, with marketing they say it cost WB closer to 200 million.>> I think they only list production budgets on that site. I know if you click on the complete budget list it has both Pirates sequels as 150 million each. But I heard that both were closer to 250 million once marketing came into effect.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 WilliamK99 - Did the Wachowski brothers beat up your dog or something? I can tell you're pleased as punch that Warner Bros. is taking a bath on it, but really now. It's just a movie. ;-D<< I actually like them, well V for Vendetta and the first Matrix at least. But I watched the movie and feel like it was the biggest waste of my time ever...and this coming from a guy who paid to watch Gigli.... pathetic movie, and it deserves what it is getting...BTW, Speed Racer barely made over a million it's first Monday, it is crashing and burning hard....
Originally Posted By DAR Is it an urban legend that it might not be the Wachowski Brothers but the Wachowski Brother and Sister?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>pathetic movie,<< Wow, William, I guess you and I are destined to disagree about absolutely everything!
