Skip to main content

I’m what you might call a champagne problem.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
(2019)

(SPOILERS) The idea of teaming the two most engaging characters from the recent Fast & Furious movies for a spin-off seems like a no-brainer for making something better than Fast & Furious at its best (somewhere around 6 & 7), but there’s a flaw to this thinking (even if the actual genesis of the movie wasn’t Dwayne Johnson swearing off being on the same set as Vin again); the key to F&F succeeding is the ensemble element, and the variety of the pick’n’mix of characters. Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw – I can’t help thinking the over-announced title itself stresses an intrinsic lack of confidence somewhere at Universal – duly provides too much of a good thing, ensuring none of the various talents employed are fully on top of their game.

In particular, Shaw was the highlight of the lacklustre Fast & Furious 8 (a lot of that being down to the largely leaden direction of F Gary Gray), off doing his own thing on a plane saving a baby. And Hobbs, by virtue of limited availability in Fast & Furious 7, was laid up in bed, coming on for maximum impact with a very big gun at the climax. That’s kind of how these things needto work, giving you enough juggling balls to make the overlong action spectacle continuously interesting, so there’s always something fairly fresh or ludicrous just around the corner if part of it doesn’t work for you.

Series regular writer Chris Morgan, teaming with Drew Pearce, knows that, to the extent that he drafts in an uncredited Ryan Reynolds (as Hobbs’ hyper camp CIA buddy Locke) and an uncredited Kevin Hart (as a wannabe spy air marshal) at judicious moments to provide yuks (Reynolds in particularly, a tornado of improv, is simultaneously hilarious and exhausting, extending into the end credits where he announced he has stabbed a guy with a brick). But it’s not enough to make the banter between the antagonistic buddies other than fitfully amusing.

A lot of their quipping smacks of trying too hard, with insults that fall flat and attempts to make Hobbs’ snark as effective as Shaw’s (such are the requirements of star power). Whatever Johnson’s appeal as a said star, it’s no more based on his being great with delivering witticisms than it is being a romantic lead (as per his former co-star Diesel, his love interest subplot – with Vanessa Kirby – falls flat). As such, he’s much better as a riled straight man to Statham’s obnoxious blunt-force-trauma insult parade. Statham generally gets the better moments (using a lift while Hobbs jumps off a building, “Mike Oxsmall”), but the aforementioned need for parity (Hobbs later gets mirror paybacks of each) cumulatively makes them bothslightly irritating.

Kirby’s fine as Shaw’s sister Hattie (although, we’re supposed to believe there’s only a few years between them, rather than the actual two decades Statham has on her). Helen Mirren’s really great as his incarcerated mum (she’s as funny as the expressly funny Reynolds and Hart, funnier even, and hugely likeable with it), and Eddie Marsan gets a very Eddie Marsan turn as a Russian scientist.

Idris Elba, however, continues his unfailing run of proving an ill fit for Hollywood, as the one-note, cybernetically enhanced villain Brixton. His tediously hyperbolic role mirrors the plot as a whole, revolving around elements loosely lifted from the conspirasphere (the intent to hook everyone up to a technological future – “Brother you may believe in machines, but we believe in people” – by way of a Georgia Guidestones-esque culling of the population), while taking in the ease of putting out fake news (Hobbs and Shaw are turned into fugitives at the click of a headline). That there’s a ticking clock element (Hattie has injected herself with a virus intended to wipe out most of the Earth’s populace, and they have to get it out of her) ought to add a sense of urgency, but too much of the movie is victim to the kind of stodgy pacelessness that comes with an overabundance of fast-edited spectacle at the expense of engaging action.

Which is particularly disappointing, this coming from David Leitch in his current gun-for-hire phase. Opinions vary on which of the John Wick men is more talented, Leitch or Chad Stahelski, but for my money, Atomic Blonde has some of the best action choreography in any movie full stop. Leitch also did a decent job with Deadpool 2, but he’s on seriously diminishing returns here, such that the effect is frequently that of feeling any interchangeable second unit/ effects team could have come up with similar. Worst afflicted is the Ukraine sequence with a whole lot of listless driving around some prime industrial wasteland. There are moments here – Shaw fighting his way down a corridor while Hobbs has an effortless passage down his – that are exactlywhat you want from this movie. But too often, it descends into banal overkill and becomes really quite boring.

Which includes the jaunt to Samoa, at a point where the movie should long ago have ended, at least until Stahelski and his stunt team pull of a genuinely impressive, eye-popping multi-car attached to helicopter set piece (I emphasise this, because by this point I’d practically given up on the picture). There’s also the inevitable “It’s all about family” stuff (which has to be equally Hobbs and Shaw, and as noted above with the humour, the Shaw stuff is always superior, with a thankless role for Cliff Curtis as Hobbs’ brother). The other most resonant element of this section are the elements, whereby the action ranges from night to broad daylight to a deluge in the space of one extended sequence. That Samoan weather is a bitch.

Of course, there’s a set up for a sequel, which at current reckoning will depend on how Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw goes down in China, the biggest market for the series (the last two each made nearly $400m there; if this makes more than half that, it may be okay, but it will still be seriously lagging the worldwide for the main event). I think, if they’re going to be a viable spinoff, they really need to take a leaf out of their progenitor’s “variety” book, which means more of those minor roles – Mirren, Hart, Reynolds – and framing the leads closer to Captain Jack than wannabe Vins.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.