It was fun, and surprisingly funny.

I have no desire to ever see "Into The Wild", because it doesn't interest me in the slightest. But I don't relish the chance to complain about the movie on internet forums in an attempt to justify my opinions.

Bottom line: The film sucks. 9/10 people think so. It made zilch for bucks. Critics hate it. Half of the meager 18 mil it made is accounted with people on this very site who watched and say it's crap.

I love how Emile Hirsch mentions "Into the Wild" FOUR seperate times in the interview, LOL. Even he knows he better get started with damage control.

Oh well, maybe there will be a Girl Next Door 2: Emile pays the rent.

I could see how people who actually saw the film could be turned off by it. This movie doesn't do anything by halfs. When it gets crazy, it gets crazy. When it gets goofy, it gets gooofy! Amid all this insane "hyperreality", though, is Emile's portrayal of Speed. I think he is the emotional anchor of the film. By the end of the film, you know Speed Racer approaches racing with deadly seriousness.

I think anyone who's into the type of films promoted by AICN owes it to themselves to see this movie on the big screen. I think it really is the trippiest movie ever made.

The movie's out, people can judge for themselves. It was panned by critics and made little money and yet...we have no less than 4 Speed Racer articles in the "top stories" section, 2 that were added after the films unsuccessful release. It stinks to high heaven of studio-paid propaganda, even if it isn't.

To quote the famous father of one of this summers 3 TRUE awesome films: "Indiana..let it go."

2. I thought the emotional scenes between Speed and his family i.e. Mom, Pops, Racer X, were...well, emotional, and not audience winking or sarcastic at all. Someone even said they got a tear in their eye with the Speed/Mom scene.

3. Most comedy-themed films have the lead character as a straight man (Sienfeld, Mickey Mouse, Something About Mary, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Superman, etc.) whilst the supporting cast are allowed to fall into slapstick. It allows comedy into the film while allowing the audience to still take the film (the lead character) seriously. And Speed Racer approaches his racing with deadly seriousness. He ain't fucking around on the track, that much is evident. Emile makes the movie for me, moreso even than the groundbreaking filmmaking. He's a good kid. He has to be.

Then I watched the first 7 minutes and was shocked about the bad acting and the lame "race" (i.e. driving lesson) sequence. I thought that the preview sucked.

BUT I even gave it a try in theatres. But it just proved what I feared: that SPEED RACER suffers from wooden acting, lame, overblown action sequences, flawed camera work and infantile jokes. It wasn't only the fucking chimp and the fucking fat kid which ruined it for me. It was all the above plus the fact that the overall movie is a borefest par excellence. What a shame, I really like all the actors (except for that jerkoff Hirsch).

(And not because I was inspired by the movie.)

Also I feel why people have a hard time with this movie while Ironman has done so well. Is that Ironman took very little to few risks. While Speed was all risk. You could say that Downy was a risk because he is not a box office draw, but everyone knows he is very likeable and a good actor who was just never given the chance to be in a big movie, it was more of a long time coming then risk. Plus everything about Ironman was very well done yes, but ultimately pedestrian in terms of pushing to the next level. Ironman is just the best/most solid comic book movie to be made in this new surge of comic book movies, I guess you could say X-men being the start of it. While speed on the other hand turned the cartoon to movie on its head. Instead of the typical kiddie far (Underdog/Alvin/Garfield) or just making a cartoon movie (TMNT/ATHF/South Park) or just using the name to make your own movie (Transformers/Æon Flux/Thunderbirds/The Pink Panther/Inspector Gadget/G.I.Joe (probably)). They fucking made a real live action Speed Racer, pretty much the only movies you can compare it with really are The Flintstones/George of The Jungle/Dudley Do-Right but those were mainly comedies. But people are making it out to be more Æon Flux and Rockey and Builwinckle then The Flintstones. I would say the best movie to compare this too is Flintstones. And seeing that they both have John Goodman and Speed is a lot better. But then again The Flintstones are a much bigger part of the American culture then Speed. Which brings me to what I've been saying in other posts. This should have waited to come out around Christmas. It would have had a fighting chance. Just like Alvin which isn't a hugely popular old cartoon, and critics hated it but there was nothing else out for kids. And from what I've heard adults didn't mind it that much.

Take Hancock for example, from what I gather is that it could be a an edgy/vulgar take on superheroes. But they didn't cast an edgy/vulgar actor, they got William Smith. And his big budget more comedey then action movies haven't been as huge(Wild West/MIB2) so they are making Hancock seem more serious in the previews (You deserve Better, I will be better, and the defelcting bullet looking like the bullet in the eye from Superman). Thus ensuring big B.O. returns.

2.) It isn't the CG or the look. I also love all the PT (sue me) and the CG doesn't ruin it for me. As I said in the OTHER tb for another story about SR after it's release: I like what they were trying to do with the world/colors, just as I loved the Dick Tracy flick when I was a kid. (and still love it now..again, sue me)

3.)As I said in the other tb, I appreciate that this was a new thing, and what the W's were trying to do.

4.)I watched all the previews and it just seemed too...fake I guess. But I decided to check out the 7 minute preview and it was weak. As I said in the other tb, it was the actual "race" that seemed off to me. To much like a video game, like F-Zero or Mariokart. No weight behind it. I mean c'mon, TPM is almost TEN YEARS OLD and it got the pod race right, with CG sky, sand, pods, aliens, everything!It can be done, and have weight and realism to it. Harder to do in a "cartoon look" film I suppose, but it just looks like a playstation game to me, no danger there.

5.)I don't know if your comment was directed at me Moriarty, because I said that I DIDN'T think you were on the take, but rather letting you know how posting all these interviews and such AFTER the film bombed can APPEAR to be suspicious and a little contrived.

Take that with a grain of salt. Don't use it now, put it on the shelf and pull it out later if you want, when you aren't so angry.

To the other tb'ers (and Mori as well, I suppose) we get it: You liked it and think it's underrated. What you don't get is that people on here saw it and didn't like it, or saw at least all the trailers and 7 min. of the film and were turned off. Heck, Capone blasted the film but nobody gets on his case.

I'm done, but I want it understood where the "on the take" accusations (or even cautions, as I posted) are coming from. And also understood that there are non-haters out there, regular fantasy/sci-fi/comic book film lovers, who saw either some or all of the film and gave it a pass. I have no agenda here, I just wasn't digging it.

You dig?

i don't think all the negative reviews were necessarily wrong: Speed Racer certainly has some substantial flaws and you gotta be willing to get past some quantum levels of cheese to appreciate it. but i also think it's foolish to write it off as a big budget turkey. sure, it might have bombed mightily at the box office, but it merged groundbreaking effects with genuine charm and a true heart. makes me think that history will look a little more kindly upon it than it is now.

For me, casting Emile Hirsch drew me to this film initially, as I've been a fan of his work since "Into the Wild."

Perhaps they should have hired a rare endangered Bonobo to be ChimChim...

2006: Smokin' Aces, We Are Marshall

2008: Vantage Point

If you disagree with the premise being inherently UNrealistic, then don't criticise them for being successful in exactly what they were trying to achieve. If you're talking about realism & weight (and natural dialogue for that matter or non-stylised performance), then I'd respectfully argue you don't in fact "get it". The pod race is a DIFFERENT kettle of fish, the similarity very literal and surface.

Your criticisms about Speed Racer stopping short of being a full on action-masterpiece seem to me to be a major reason people who actually saw the film might not have gotten completely onboard with it. I can understand that. Not enough Racer X badness. Not enough ninjas. Too much Spritle/ChimChim. Fair enough.

We should remember, though, that the title of this film is "Speed Racer." Not "Ninja Racers" or "The Further Adventures of Racer X." At the core of the film is a young grommet named Speed Racer who has a near pure passion for the art of automobile racing, and he's the best there is at it. That's when the film becomes deadly serious. That's when Speed gets "that look" on his face and won't let anything stop him from being the first to cross the finish line. Ninjas are merely a fun diversion. Racer X is just there to help. Focusing too much on this other stuff, investing more emotion in it than it needs takes away from the true being of the film, that is, automobile racing.

In addition, I don't think the Wachowskis were looking to make a pure full-on action masterpiece and thus fall into typical summer movie fare. Typical action movie narrative. I really think they were trying to give us something we've never seen before. This may be a problem for most audiences looking for standard movie fare, but as the Stones song goes, "you can't always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need." Maybe this is what cinema needed? We'll see.

But do we really need the "yeah yeah... monkeys...amirite?" parts - you could probably just dump those out and the interview wouldn't miss them.

Step back a bit, son. Regain your perspective.

As for me, the second time around, the movie has risen from brilliant to near genius. I liked it twice as much the second time. There were things I picked up that I missed the first time (the sound was a bit low on my first viewing). The absurd scenes weren't as absurd. The talking floating commentator heads seemed more appropriate. Everything made more sense. The execution of this film was damn near perfect. I wouldn't change a thing. Nice work, Bros. Wachowski.

Speed Racer is one of the greatest multiplex extravaganza movies to come out in a long time.

Bullshit. Critics are shit, and I'll never trust one again. Ever.

Watching Speed racer a second time, only Christina Ricci could have pulled off the Casa Cristo race. Any other generic hot newcomer would have been like casting Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. Stupid.

Christina Ricci IS Trixie.

Yeah, it's pretty sad that this film was lost on the masses, Laser. My 10 year-old buddy says he's the only kid in his class who saw Speed Racer so far. That's a freaking shame.

I will buy a Blu Ray player because of this film.

Did someone earlier say the film was anti-monopoly, not anti-capitalist? Exactly. Racer Motors needs the market to survive, as much as Royalton and Togokhan. The only difference is that they play fair and only want to survive within a small niche, not monopolise production of an essential motor part using crooked tactics. "Cheaters never prosper," is the last pre-credits thing we see for a reason.

There is a really really huge gap to fill before the producers get any money back from this business utter failure / "pop masterpiece".

I purchased a DVD of the old Speed Racer cartoon the other day, and am "rediscovering" the classic episodes like "Mammoth Car" and "Most Dangerous Race." Wow. I didn't realize the Wachowski Bros. were being so faithful to the original cartoon. There are elements in the movie taken straight from the cartoon. Again, it's a shame this great film is being lost on audiences right now who aren't discovering it on the big screen.

Of course, anyone with even a basic knowledge of dramaturgy and screenwriting craft knows that 'Speed Racer' had a damn fine screenplay. But it would seem that critics who were so numbed by the groundbreaking visuals that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

Ironically, the few audiences who have seen the film have actually had an overwhelmingly positive reaction. The problem is that not enough people are actually going to begin with, although there is a possibility that positive word of mouth could allow the film to hang in for a number of weeks longer than expected.

So yes, I think this film will be remebered kindly by history. Although that's little consolation to the Wachowski Brothers and their team. But I suspect they were well aware that - as with all their films - they were taking a risk. And, as with any risk, it doesn't always pay off.

Time will tell.