Sound Off: Speed Racer - Is It Really That Bad?

December 9, 2007

Speed Racer - Is It Really That Bad?

The very first trailer for the Wachowski's upcoming Speed Racer debuted on Thursday night to quite a negative response on the internet. Not only has there been a lot of debate in two articles here on (the first one with the photos and then the actual trailer), but I argued it with Peter Sciretta from /Film on our FightCast, and his website has a 62 comment post with a majority of negative comments. So this Sunday, I invite everyone to drop by and leave a comment and sound off of the Speed Racer trailer. Is it really that bad?

Kicking this off, it's important to note that my opinion on the trailer is very positive. I'm expecting Speed Racer to be incredible and I love the trailer. It's exciting, it's groundbreaking and very unique, and I am certain the Wachowski's will deliver a mind-blowing movie yet again. When have they ever gone wrong? If you look at their track record, there hasn't ever been a doubt as to their filmmaking ability. The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions, and V for Vendetta. Sure the second and third Matrix movies might have had story issues, but technically they were amazing.

Cinematical held a poll on the trailer with some thankfully good results: 42.9% said "I'm loving this so far", 29.8% said "I'm somewhere in the middle", and only 17.1% said "I hate everything about it." I guess this maybe sheds some light on the idea that only the haters are vocal. Everyone who seems to like it aren't coming out and being vocal about it. So if you did like the trailer and are looking forward to Speed Racer, please say so below!

I think JoBlo gives a great introduction to why the response to this has been so negative: "I think the Wachowskis have outdone themselves on this one. Any other director(s) would have turned this into a generic big budget CG extravaganza (sadly, those have become generic) but the Wachowskis have gone out of their way to create something utterly unique, a singular vision you might say." People are afraid of new things, and it takes time for them to understand and appreciate it, but as most aggressive people do, they fight it out with negative opinions while they still hate it. People are just using this opportunity to attack the film as much as they can because it doesn't look as perfectly polished as other CGI in movies, but that's because it's not supposed to. It's a new and different style that you'll have to get used to.

The biggest argument I've heard against it is that it looks like a video game. So? Everyone loves video games, so what's so wrong with that. And I guarantee when you actually watch this in the theater on a giant screen and with full audio, watching stylized live-action video-game-like car races will amaze, not bore, you. Even if it takes the remaining 152 days for everyone to fully understand, by the time this comes out on May 9th, everyone will be saying how good, not how bad, it actually is.

Find more posts: Discuss, Editorial, Sound Off



I'm a cynical, finicky son of a bitch and I was actually quite enthused by what I saw. I'd venture to guess the collective opinion of the internet haven't actually been fans of the original Speedracer cartoon series, or they'd realize just how faithful to the original this appears to be. The casting appears to be perfect (Emile Hirsch, John Goodman and Matthew Fox in particular), it's tastefully campy in all the right spots, and visually quite stunning. I don't know what else you could expect from this movie, based on the television series.

Devon Shaw on Dec 9, 2007


Well I think it looks astonishing not only in the technique they are filming it in but they way they seem to be playing off the original shows look and story dead on. I have liked all of their movies especially V for Vendetta and I don't think they will mess this up.

Stephen on Dec 9, 2007


I was bored by the trailer. The whole movie should be about racing and Racer X should be the movies only concern. There is no place for plot or John Goodman in this movie.

Vega Bro on Dec 9, 2007


I really don't like the CGI, I think it could be better. It's not that the CGI LOOKS bad, it's that everything looks good, but it seriously looks like a PlayStation 1 or Nintendo 64 video game, and really, in this day and age CGI should be looking more realistic, or atleast more refined, like Final Fantasy VII Advent Children or Beowulf, OR if you're going for a cartoony look, something like Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl, or the new Sonic the Hedgehogs. Everything else in this movie looks incredible.

Kail on Dec 9, 2007


I've heard about the new camera system the Wachowski's are using for this (multiple levels of focusing, as to give the film a 2-D look instead of the natural 3-D that we're used to seeing), and I think the main reason that the response has been so negative is that we didn't really get to see a really clear TRUE example of this in the trailer. I think if there would have even one clear shot with this technique employed that didn't go by in the blink of an eye, people would realize that this movie is going to be a lot cooler than what the trailer indicates. I'm with Alex on this one: the Wachowski's have a pretty excellent track record and I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, especially since they're the ones who created Bullet Time - and we all know how many times that's been imitated. Let's reserve judgment until we really see what they have in store for us with Speed Racer.

Ben on Dec 9, 2007


The Matrix is one of the favorite films, but this one looks like a waste of time. I hope I'm wrong.

dan on Dec 9, 2007


It isn't that the effects looked bad - they look like very "cartoon come to life," which I don't mind - its that the tone is way off. If you're going to go for a cartoony look and what appears to be a very comic book, high concept plot, the actors can't play it so seriously. Maybe its just a poorly cut trailer, but right now it has "most expensive bomb in movie history" written all over it.

David Markland on Dec 9, 2007


Looks like a kiddie movie. Don't like a single frame of the trailer and I don't think the movie will be anything but a failure. Why? The Wachowski are two of the most overrated directors in the business. I mean, matrix was a huge hit, but also a fluke. The 2 sequels really showed what the Wachowskis were all about: lots of CGI and a dumb story with stupid dialogue, and I believe the same will happen with Speed Racer. Something like an overextended Phantom Menace pod-race.

Carlos on Dec 9, 2007


I disagree with David Markland. Its not played seriously throughout the entire trailer (scene with boy and monkey in the trunk...?) for one, but I dont think they have to play it seriously just because it looks cartoony. It looks to me to be quite a good balance between humorous and dramatic scenes, and the actors are very reliable. I loved the entire look of the trailer personally. Its supposed to look cartoony, and the CGI clearly llustrates that. The trailer is not bad. Its very good.

Keith on Dec 9, 2007


I quite agree with Devon and Alex. I'm excited for this. I don't think it's too "video game"-ish or over the top.. whatever; it's a frickin' CARTOON. Where wacky stuff happened all the time. I remember having a similar conversation with a friend last year about the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. He kept pointing out all of the "stuff" in the movie that wasn't realistic, like Jack catching the fruit on his pole, the whole water wheel sequence, etc.. I just kinda stared and him and asked "but cursed Aztec gold is believable? Or Davy Jones?".. ugh.

Nicholas on Dec 9, 2007


Honestly? I think the trailer looks amazing. There is a lot of unfinished CGI, this is true, but the Wachowskis will deliver something that we have never seen before. They have set up a world, and as long as they stick to that world I think it will be an interesting ride. Honestly V for Vendetta wasn't bad.

David Jaffe on Dec 9, 2007


You know what's funny, the ONE SCENE you've got in the "Is it really that bad" banner/image is the only part that bugs me in the whole trailer. To me, when somebody says "what if columns went on forever and ever!" they're not exercising any kind of restraint. It reminds me of when people use photoshop and can't stop themselves from using every filter. Don't have columns going off into the distance just because a computer makes it possible. If this kind of thing doesn't come up every few moments in the film, I'll enjoy it. Looking forward to it.

dRailer on Dec 9, 2007


I think it looks fine. The directors were going for a surreal look to make it like a live-action anime cartoon. From what I've seen in the trailer, it looks like they've done a good job. The big thing I have a gripe with is that so many people are quick to judge the entire movie based on this trailer. I mean how retarded is that? Grow up. Wait for the movie to come out before the bashing commences. I'm going to see this movie for sure, and I'm optimistic. But I'm not going to judge the movie until I see it. For some idiots, that makes too much sense.

Chris on Dec 9, 2007


I think it looks ok. I wouldn't see it in a theatre but I'd rent it, definatly. intriguing....the cgi doesn't look cheap its ( I'm assuming) suposed to look video game like

renee on Dec 9, 2007


first of all, i wanna say i love speed racer. wachowski brothers, not so much. but they do have a good track record. with that said, i think its premature to judge a movie that comes out next year based on a minute and half of footage. sure, racer x should have been featured a little more in the trailer.sure, the CG looks like rainbow road from mario kart 64.. and sure, john goodman isn't the perfect choice to play speed's dad. but im choosing to stay optimistic with this movie. especially since i loves me some christina ricci. thnx for listening

mos on Dec 10, 2007


I'm just not interested in a Speed Racer movie. I don't see the point. I haven't watched the trailer, but the pictures haven't looked that special to me.

Zach on Dec 10, 2007


I am looking forward to the movie. My father used to watch Speed Racer a lot, and I am in love with it. The trailer looks very promising.

Cynthia on Dec 10, 2007


I think it's an annoying remake of an annoying cartoon... but that's just me. To get a taste of other opinions, I started a poll starting a couple of hours after the trailer was released. Here are the results: Here's a preview: almost half of respondents don't like the look of it.

Great White Snark on Dec 10, 2007


Ben (#5) - You hit it DEAD on! Trailers have always never looked as good as the final result, and given this is 5 months out, I think there is still plenty of time for them to finish the CGI and the look. I really think there is a whole lot more to behold, and that this was just a teaser trailer, not even a full trailer. But once we're treated to the real vision on screen in May that the Wachowski's dreamt up, it'll be a different story - for everyone, too. Carlos - The first Matrix is a fluke?! You're joking right... There is no way anyone will call the first Matrix a fluke. It was a guaranteed solid hit and it has changed Hollywood forever. Great White Snark - How come all of the people who like it are over here commenting, we've barely had any negative comments? Like I said, I think it's only just the vocal people who are out trying to give negative opinions, and everyone who likes it are being reserved. You don't have that many votes to begin with, but it is a formidable attempt.

Alex Billington on Dec 10, 2007


@Alex: You see, I think that they got that movie right. I give them credit for that. But then, with the sequels, they demonstrated that they couldn't keep it up. Sure, those movies had great FX, but that was because they had a ton of money just for that. Both sequels showed that either there was no need for sequels or that the directors were very inspired with Matrix but I think that that inspiration simply wore off. PS: And talking about Speed Racer, the trailer reminded me of Spy Kids 3D...

Carlos on Dec 10, 2007


Love the trailer. So glad they did not go with the 300 Bewolf look. Love that it looks more like your watching a game or such then watching colored over live action. I do remember the first time Speed was on back in the old UHF days and I am looking forward to seeing this movie.

Gregg on Dec 10, 2007


This movie will be a huge hit, period. The movie does not come out until May, and there will be much more creative marketing than anyone here can imagine. Plus, trailers never do a film justice, especially since the makers don't want to give everything away in the trailer. Also, let's all stand back for a moment and realize that the only people that would go out of their way to read this article and more important post something here about a film that comes out in 6 months fits into two categories, a huge fan or a huge hater. Most people won't admit it, but haters will go out of their way much more to smear something rather than praise it. And trust me, the fans are NOT going to waste their time arguing about something that they clearly know will not convince the other side. So screw it, I don't see a reason why the fans should unite and start praising a friggin trailer! Let the film come out and we'll do it then, why waste our opinions now when it's based on a two minute trailer! We all have lives, and I've already spent more time on this than I should. Finally, lets not forget one of the larger reasons as to why most people don't like the Wachowskis. When the last two matrix films came out, a good amount of people didn't get the true philosophical, gnostic, existential theories that were embedded in the film. There were also a good amount of people THAT DID GET IT, and endlessly talked about it on message boards all across the net and wrote dozens of books about it. The egos of these haters couldn't take it and they just ended up smearing the film and those that praised it. These haters are threatened by the fact that they couldn't "get" something that others did, and for that reason they will smear anything the Wachowskis do. BUT GUESS WHAT, they will all pay the full price of admission just to please their curiosity, they will find or make up dozens of reason to hate on it, and they will run home to their computers to talk trash about it as soon they leave the theater.

contrlkaos on Dec 10, 2007


i dont understand why all the hate for this movie i think its amazing the way this movie if being filmed and its definatly revolutionary ive only seen like 1 episode of the speed racer cartoon and i dont really care but this movie look action packed and a hell of a lot of fun at the movies so stop criticizing and keep your opinions to yourself if you dont have anything good to say about it

Casey Sanders on Dec 10, 2007


I think it looks good. Appealing style/visuals, but perhaps a weak story. Anyways I really want an original story idea from the Wachowski's. Vendetta was based on a comic and speed racer on an anime so not much originality on those parts

ramez on Dec 10, 2007


I think a lot of the negative opinion is simply coming from the source material & who's developing it. The Wachowski's other works were adult, deep, thought provoking works on the nature of reality (Matrix Trilogy) and of individual responsibility to pay attention to and keep control of their government. (V for Vendetta). Both of which had a very gritty feel to them and a darker color scheme. Then they turn around and do a "G" rated film, based on an old cartoon, with color that burns your eyeballs in every frame. It's a different style & feel for the Wachowskis than what we're used to, and that's probably the cause for all the freaking out. My guess is they just wanted to drop the melodrama and just do something FUN for a change.

jason_md2020 on Dec 10, 2007


I thought it looked awesome. True to the cartoon, but made for our time. Keep it up W Bros!

Nick B. on Dec 10, 2007


I couldn't care less about a 'Speed Racer' movie--I never even saw the show--HOWEVER, as a movie fan, and Wachowski supporter--I think it looks very cool. I was getting goose bumps just thinking about more 'matrix-esque' kung fu! I am officially intrigued. 🙂 As an aside, I find many times with movies based on shows, games, books, etc. that NOT being too familiar with the source material is an advantage to enjoying the film version. Thanks everyone! S

Steven on Dec 10, 2007


IT will be SUWATE

Joe on Dec 10, 2007

29's THAT BAD!!! (in my opinion) I doubt I'll even ever rent the DVD, let along fork out the bucks for a big screen seat. Of course this kind of stuff is 'fan-centric'. If you're not a die-hard fan of the original cartoon, you probably wouldn't give a damn about something like this. I'm not...and I don't. It's just like these video games turned film. It's for the fans. Otherwise....boooorrrring.

Cufford on Dec 10, 2007


I liked it. And look, I've dealt with many a hater on AICN. The hater nature is to bitch and whine and moan and bitch because they can't do anything else. If I'm satisfied, I move on. If I'm dissatisfied, I complain until I AM satisfied. That's human nature. The problem with haters is they are NEVER satisfied, and so they will ALWAYS bitch and moan and whine and bitch until they are dead. The most non-haters can do is sit back and enjoy the entertainment value that only such mindless and reckless hatred can bring. Breathe easy, Alex. And fuck the haters. Go, Speed Racer. Go.

Kevin on Dec 10, 2007


#29, just curious, why would you read an article, let alone leave a comment about a film you NEVER plan on watching. Come on bro, go do something else. I have never watched the cartoon, and this looks better than most stuff that has been released over the past year or so. Really, when was the last time you were truly entertained at the movies? I can't even remember, and honestly, this looks like a visual feast. If you ever saw the Matrix films in IMAX, you probably know what I mean by saying visual feast. There was just so much flying at you, that you couldn't wait to see it again. I mean, can you blame the Wachowski Brothers for trying something new??? All we hear about is that there hasn't been a REALLY good film in a long time, and films like Star Wars will never be made again. I would hate to know that my children will never be able to embrace a film like my generation embraced Star Wars. The people that say "This looks like crap" need to be a little more open minded.

hexster on Dec 10, 2007


I thought the trailer was great - like a kid's hot wheels scenario come to life, in the coolest way. I think it's going to make a mint. I want to invest some $ in hotwheels this summer. That said, they should have cast an actor with huge eyes who talks really fast as Speed. I hope the poster recreates the classic pose Speed makes at the end of the cartoon's opening.

Brian on Dec 12, 2007


GOoD chit, you know exactly this movie is going to rule whether you like it or not. The Choice, the problem is choice. Free your mind.

KOOLcat on Dec 13, 2007


it looks horrible... on top of that, one of the clips near the end, where the car is sliding through a corner.. it has the number 6 on the side of it. the MACH 5 has the #6 on it. yeah... looks fant-freaking-tastic.

Jeremy on Dec 14, 2007


Not bad. It looks like a live action Comic Book! Campy and stylistic...reminds me of cinematograpy in the same vein as Dick Tracy, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Sin City. A little too much CGI though! Casting is superb, all the characters are shoe ins. What's next, "Kimba" the White Lion?

EDK on Dec 16, 2007


It is interesting that they've gone for a very bright, candy-colored pinball game-look; especially considering the look of every other movie they've ever made! I'd also like to point out that V for Vendetta was not directed by the wachoskis: they PRODUCED it. And given the last 2 Matrix movies- which, really, as a film reviewer, for you to say they had "Story Problems" is a bit of an understatement. What are movies? Oh yeah, stories that are told on a screen. So...Technically, they're VIDEO GAMES without the GAME- NOT Movies if they're stories, characters & dialogue were that below par, yes? How much did they pay you to make this 2nd post? It's obviously working, GroupThink playing out as it does. But your squeaky clean positive review does not excuse the fact that THE LAST TWO MOVIES THESE GUYS DIRECTED WERE NOT VERY GOOD, AT ALL. V for Vendetta was something they dared not direct, b/c they realized they know nothing about character development or plot nuance. Or mood. Or STORY. That told, it was a fairly good movie that had alot of its source material intact, but owing NOTHING to the Wachowskis except for the slow-mo special effects, if you know the difference between what a Director does and what producers do. I like the main actor- but would've never pegged him for a squeaky clean 'Speed Racer' type. John Goodman looks exactly like he did as Fred Flinstone, which at least is consistent w/ that era of cartoons, being traslated to film. So, in brief: the Technicality of a Camera that has no single point of focus, to most film-makers, holds no advantage in the process of making a good film that tells a good story. Even novels with multiple narrators, and video games w/ multiple online players, have a single point of focus so, like that wonderful newfangled contraption, the Human Eye, (two of which I'll be using to watch this thing- IF I watch it), the viewer will have SOME clue as to what is going on. If you, as a movie critic, can get away with saying "Yeah, they may not be able to tell good stories, but they make great movies!" then you should be hung out for the Wachowki bros. paid intern that you are. Either that, or you gotta watch something that was made before the year 2003, dude. Armageddon, for example, does not count as "Great Movie Making". There are PLENTY of reasons to berate the Wachowskis for making bad movies, especially since the Matrix was such a compelling story and well done movie (okay, Keanu is Keanu, but even w/ its recycled monster movie & sci fi staples, Matrix was at least complex enough to warrant repeated viewing). These guys are chumps. They should just go into making video games, since clearly their strength is in their effects. Oh wait. Looks like they are making a video game. And no- NOT EVERYONE PREFERS VIDEO GAMES TO WELL MADE FILMS. I will give them props for trying something new. I will also say it has a very good chance of not redeeming its production costs, unless it's a watchable film. This trailer, and their track record, both leave me in doubt. One would only hope I'm proven wrong on this one, but I ain't crossing my fingers. Yet.

Djomigod on Dec 17, 2007


This movie looks like it could give you instant A.D.H.D. just from seeing it ONCE. Now you don't need a childhood full of Nickelodeon, you can plug in instantly. Thank you Wachowski brothers! Wachowskis: Drug Movies- but with a paper heart...

Djomigod on Dec 17, 2007


Not all movies are created equal #36. What I mean by that is one person's vision for a film could be different than the others. I have watched the last two matrix films, and they have a great deal to offer. On the surface, they may seem like poorly directed films, but even the Wachowskis admit to that. They have two different commentaries on the DVD set, one of which involves critics absolutely trashing the last two films, everything from acting, directing, editing, continuity, etc. The other commentary is performed by two renowned philosophers that provided incredible insight to what's going on below the surface. They look past certain flaws and just enthrall themselves into the story, which is what I did when I watched these films, and it was very redeeming for me. Honestly, I've watched the last two Matrix films with some friends, and they'll have no friggin' clue about what is going on, and I don't blame them because on the surface it's hella confusing and doesn't have the greatest character development. But if you really understand what is going on, you'll see that this is how the characters are SUPPOSED to be portrayed because of the situation they are in. All the characters are dealing with the fact that all of society may eliminated in a heartbeat, and here you are asking for the characters to show us more about themselves. Dude, they're showing enough. It's all about what you put into it, and I am not alone in saying that those that put their minds into the Matrix films and were open minded about it, got what they were looking for... a very heavy, existential, question driving trilogy. For those that chose not to see beyond some directorial failures, then so be it. It is what it is. You get what you put into it. And honestly, I am hoping to invest some energy into Speed Racer because it looks like it's another film that will revolutionize the way movies are made. Speed Racer will have the same exact effect. The haters will always talk smack because that is THEIR choice.

hexster on Dec 18, 2007


Hexter- I have to admit, that's the first time I've ever heard a person applaud the Philosophical relevance of something, and use the word "Hella" in the next sentence. Hexter, my friend, there are plenty of films out there that tell excellent stories without getting overly involved with character. It's a balance- you may hear this in your 7th grade English class, if and when you get to it- The Essential categories of Stories are: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Himself, and Man vs. Nature. The Matrix (the first one) is mostly concerned w/ the 2nd two. The 2nd two Matrix movies went as follows (as I recall): -Showcase latest CGI, within a pulse-pounding action sequence. -Beat audience on the head w/ Neo's brooding. (But don't give a clue what's on his mind-) -Insert Rave Sequence. -Make movie longer by filming every dancer in digital slo-mo. -Pointless, passionless sex scene. -Techno music. -Action sequence. -Fight scene. -(Oh shit, how many times before we have to connect it to the proverbial "Third" movie in our Trilogy?) -etc. Examples of Man vs. Nature stories which have substance are "the Old Man & the Sea", the Rhime of the Ancient Mariner, Moby Dick, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Deer Hunter (to a degree)... I strongly suggest any of these to you, if you're confused by my opinion of the Matrix Sequels. Hell, you can skip all of that and just watch the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi for classic examples of how a powerful, involving Trilogy can run. And for a Philosophical Trilogy, the Quatsi trilogy. THERE's some thought provoking stuff! I'm serious. Check out these other movies. If the Wachowski's say the 2nd Matrix movies are so bad, like you say they do on their dvd's- then Go see some Good Movies! I'm not about to apologize for beating you on the head with this. If you liked the Matrix and it got you thinking- I highly recommend that you see any of the other films and books which inspired it. There's a long tradition of Film Makers giving credit to the Films and Filmmakers that inspired them, in interviews about their films. Why the Wachowskis haven't admitted that they were riffing on everything from ALIEN to V:the Invasion, I can't tell. The nearest explanation I can give for why they can't accurately cite what inspired them, is that they had lost their inspiration after the first film, and pushed through with two sequels to fulfill the hype generated by the first one. That, my friend, is the definition of greed. If the Matrix got you thinking, then I beg of you- Read some Phillip K. Dick, read some H.P. Lovecraft, and throw in some Ray Bradbury, Frank Herbert, or, at the very least, if your attention span can't handle it- Read the Watchmen, V for Vendetta (the Graphic Novel), and the Dark Knight Returns. THEN you can tell me if the Matrix Sequels hold up to anything but themselves and the Philosophers they hired to speak favorably of the movies. (While you're at it, you might want to READ some philosophy, just so you know you're not blindly trusting in the words of whichever philosophers the Wachowski's hired. You know- there's no harm in being as informed as you possibly can be!) Good luck my friend. If you'll notice from my post, I'm express thanks that Wachowskis aren't trying to make intelligent thought provoking films anymore- for exactly the reasons I've now outlined above. Speed Racer, if you'll notice in my post- is a GOOD MOVE for them. It's a total Video Game of a Movie! The kid's are gonna love it. And then they're gonna need Ritalin within 15 minutes of having watched it. (Hint: one of the best cures for ADHD, without drugs? READING BOOKS, and WATCHING INTELLIGENT FILMS. You'll see your trigger-reflex attention span go right up in smoke, the second you start Challenging your Brain. Chess works, too. ) GOOD LUCK, MY FRIEND>

Djoser on Dec 18, 2007


And yes, before you ask, it is possible to be a well adjusted, have girlfriends, a good paying job, and all of the above and still read books. In fact, I think they could cure many a social ill if they'd just explain to pre-teenage and teenage kids: Smart. IS. Sexy. Wrap your head around THAT one! Have fun. GO Speed GO! WHOOSH! (say goodbye to your attention span) ~Djo

Djoser on Dec 18, 2007


And, btw, this film reviewer is that much MORE of a cheapskate, for saying the Wachowski's have a flawless track record- now that you've revealed they admitted it themselves in the Dvd's for the Matrix sequels! When will the shills ever learn... You gotta see where the message is coming from, before you trust it. THAT. Is the message that the first Matrix movie (the good one) should have beat into your skull. 😀

Djoser on Dec 18, 2007


DJoser, are you finished yet? Just can't get yourself to stop talking, can ya? It's all good, nothing wrong with inferiority complexes, we've all got em! Some just more than others. I find it very interesting how you happened to ramble about so much about myself that you think you know. If you want to talk about all the things that make YOU cool and make YOU refined, go start your own blog. Nuff said. (Sorry I used Nuff, is that ok?) Furthermore, I have read and seen just about everything you mentioned (Quatsi series, Dick books, various works of philosophy, etc), so take it easy with the assumptions. Finally, you put too much emphasis on absolutes (which is ok sometimes), you make it seem as though something is a failure if it does not fit into your criteria. That's fine. I just think that you have to admit that often times there are things that you may miss. And since YOU are the one missing it and feel you are "smarter" than most, you are taking on the responsibility to inform everybody that there was nothing to "get" anyways. Which is giving yourself a bit too much credit. Come on, after that rant you went on, there is no way you can deny that. Also, what is wrong with using a slang phrase? It's a word, and it has just as much meaning as the next. In the words of the Joker, "Why so serious?"

hexster on Dec 18, 2007


Right- apologies for the assumptions. After all, I'm just trying to help. I was flash-mailing, or 'flash-posting' and I admit it. It's good to know that Matrix served as a gateway to many other enlightening, positive things, in its own right. According to Gnosticism, though, Agent Smith would not be the enemy, as he is the one who has achieved the disembodied ideal. So, I think it's safe to say w/ Speed Racer, we'll be spared completely of the Wachowski's Pop-Spirituality- which I think we'll all agree, is a good thing. Still- this preview hurts my eyes. Literally. And if Pokemon could send kids into siezure-fits, I can only imagine what this kind of "Technical Marvel" has in store for our children. I sure as Hell ain't gonna bring my nephew to this until I'm confident he can get through a book without the aid of an adult! -Just lookin' out for the kids- Djo

Djo on Dec 18, 2007


Djo, thanks for clearing up some air there. Good point about Smith! All in all, I think that all writers have something to say, and what they say is based upon what their current disposition is. Obviously, in making the first Matrix, the W Brothers were in a questioning mindset, and I think they were so deep in thought and were so successful in getting their thoughts on to the screen, that it caused a rift in a lot of the viewers' perceptions that no one expected. And that is no easy feat. The next two films (which were supposed to be considered one long film), were different, but in a strange and not so negative way. They created a handful of other parallels to various religions and philosophies that I think were beneficial to those looking for it. Maybe they lost their focus on the key metaphysical concepts they were leaning towards in the first film, but they still did a good job of showing the more complex side of the matrix and the rules in which the creators and key players in the matrix are bound too. Not to mention all the parallels with what Smith is and what he represents. Don't forget about the parallels with The Merovingean too, that is one interesting character. Anyways, that was the disposition they were in then, and this is now. No one expects Speed Racer to be a Pop-Spirituality saga. From what I have read, aside from being a visual extravaganza, this movie will tackle on aspects of social manipulation. Something that happens everyday, and may not get much chatter at the ice cooler, but it happens to all of us. Anyone who has ever worked a corporation knows what I am talked about. It's all a part of big business. BUT, there are limits to manipulation. The question is, how do you know when it has gone too far? How much can one be manipulated to do something? This is not as simple a subject that most people would think, and it definitely is not black or white. Ever had "real" negotiations with a boss about roles and compensation? We all know that there is a complexity to these negotiations, and these complexities come about when you know you are being pushed to the limit, being promised one thing, and finally given another. Take this concept and play with it on the most basic level, with children. Ever notice how children can easily be unhappy because of something that happened at school, for endless amounts of reasons? Notice how they don't like talking about it either? Well, children get manipulated all the times, often times by other children. This sticks with a lot of children, and ends up affecting them the rest of their lives. Children have a hard time grasping individuality because at such a young age, they don't really understand what confidence is. Hence why they don't talk about their problems, because they don't know how! Individuality comes from confidence in one self. I really think that this film will try to embrace the idea of individuality and identifying sources of manipulation. I may have gone on a bit of a tangent there, but I am pretty sure that we will see a bit of these ideas in the film. And I think it will bode well with kids, because it's a simple movie. It's about Speed Racer, for crying out loud! So for those that say that this film won't be so deep on the story side (based on a two minute trailer), I say, heck that's the whole point of Speed Racer to begin with.

hexster on Dec 18, 2007


THIS IS NOT THE MATRIX! With that being said, I think Speed Racer looks frickin awesome.

Ike on Dec 18, 2007


First impression: Someone shit a rainbow on the film reel. Some of the cinematography looks good however... I liked the flowy scarf part near the end and I liked how they did a very "anime-esque" shot with Racer X in the shadows, but the edges of his face and eye were lit up (done a LOT to "villains" in anime...). I thought that was amusing. The enthusiasm of that guy telling him to sign the contract was good, but I thought everyone else's lines were REALLY cliche. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a 20-year old female college student with an interest in anime. I'm also half Viet, half White. Yeah as for the "video game" comments others have made, that's an insult to gamers. While many seem to be sort of superficial, not everyone seems that way and similarly not all games are just "flash." Sigh... most adults who don't understand a lot of this generation's culture seems to react that way. My mom calls my comics "disgusting picture-games"... WTF is a "picture game?" She also thinks Lord of the Rings is a kids movie... also anything I read with loud colors is called a "game" and when I play board games she considers that "gambling." WTF...

Tina on Dec 28, 2007


Dick Tracy + Tron + LSD + serious acting in Dreamland = waste of Time/Straight to DVD sale bin.

ME on Jan 5, 2008


I love how Carlos started by saying (see post #8) "Looks like a kiddie movie." Ahem, it IS supposedly going to be rated G... I think for all intensive purposes it is indeed a kiddie movie. I know this kid (at heart) will be seeing it. It looks like great fun to me.

Sparrow on Jan 8, 2008


Tina- sounds like your parents have some real issues w/ allowing you to grow into becoming your own person. I've had several friends who had the same issues and you just have to know that you can assert your will against their wishes while still being respectful of their concerns for you. For proof of the legitimacy of comics as a valid art form, if you haven't read it, I suggest "Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi. As for this movie- I'll continue to be a vocal defender of the Humanities and say that exposing kids to a sensory assault such as this, without ensuring that they're capable of getting through an ordinary book without the aid of an adult is a mistake that, by my prediction, will end up putting them on the path to Ritalin prescriptions at worst, and difficulties in focusing on their studies at least. The world doesn't move like Speed Racer. Even the cartoon moved slowly enough that the speed lines didn't quite threaten to induce a synaptic misfire- potentially resulting in a conniption. All I'm saying is- the Wachowski's have made a drug movie- b/c that's what they do best. Unlike Alice in Wonderland, you won't be able to close the book, put it down or take a break. All I know is, my thus far literate and intelligent nephews aren't going anywhere NEAR this one- not the 3-yr. old. Maybe the 10 yr. old- but even he can't get through a 300pg. novel w/out an adult reading along so- No. No can do. (but good comics, they're already into. They even make their own! 😉 -Djo

Djoser on Jan 8, 2008


I stand corrected from my previous post (#48)... lists it as PG-13... I still see nothing wrong with it being a "kiddie movie"...

Sparrow on Jan 8, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram