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

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.