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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…