Skip to main content

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed
(1994)

(SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Hopper was experiencing something of a minor renaissance around this point, even if some of his more villainous turns (Super Mario Bros (1993), Waterworld (1995)) weren’t exactly keepers. But he carried the best scene in Tarantino’s True Romance the year before, and here he was been given a series of choice Joss Whedon lines (Whedon rewrote about 98.9% of the dialogue, according to a very ungrudging Graham Yost). Lines like “No, no. Poor people are crazy, Jack. I’m eccentric”, “Don’t fuck with daddy” and “Oh! In two-hundred years we’ve gone from ‘I regret but I have one life to give my country’ to ‘Fuck you!’?” And exiting the toilet, audibly flushing.

De Bont had a big part in developing the screenplay too, suggesting the opening lift sequence as Fox felt setting the entire movie on a bus wasn’t sustainable. Yost then added the subway train sequence at the end, which is the only slightly disappointingly by-numbers part of the picture. But it was Whedon who came up with the “Pop quiz, hotshot”, made Keanu’s Jack Traven polite rather than young dumb and full of cum (“Sir, I need to take your phone”), killed off Jeff Daniels’ Harry (whom Yost had initially envisaged as the main villain), and made Doug (Alan Ruck) a nice guy. Perhaps surprisingly, Whedon’s dialogue is funny, but not sunk beneath pop culture quips – calling Carlos Carrasco “Gigantor” is about as far as it goes. That may be because he was a writer for hire, and couldn’t yet just do whatever he liked. It also, conversely, suggests he might have been better not to box himself in so much, genre-wise, subsequently, even if in all cases his approach to resonance is of the fast-food variety (an instant hit, but the lustre soon wears off). And now, who wants to work with the guy who reshot Justice League?

Yost would go on to acclaim for the Justified TV show, one of the few Elmore Leonard translations to land perfectly. Like Keanu, he wisely avoided Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997). Mark Mancina also deserves a mention, since Speed’s score sounds for all the world like the generic 90s action score (which isn’t a bad thing per se; he has collaborated with Hans Zimmer several times, who makes the most made-to-order music there is when it isn’t for Christopher Nolan).

The action in Speed is still perfectly executed. At least, in the first two sequences. The lift threat and rescue – everyone gets out just in the nick of time – is followed by the main attraction that is the bus gambit. Keeping it above fifty is an irresistible idea, and then throwing various obstacles in its path to prevent it from maintaining that speed (although the freeway leap is never less than the utmost silliness). If de Bont lacks the precision and finesse of McTiernan, Speed shares an emotional centre with Die Hard (1988), his former collaborator’s greatest movie. It’s far too commonly absent from the action flick: not only reaching an objective but also caring about the protagonists getting there. And here you care about both Jack and Annie (Bullock). Placed in the seat of the reluctant driver, she’s a fine foil for Jack, and Bullock is pitch perfect, possessed of that rare gift of improving her fellow performers just by dint of interacting with them.

Of course, Die Hard could boast thematic content, something Speed, with its various reworkings and juggling just to get those action beats and quips to click, doesn’t have much time for. Hopper’s Howard Payne is a homegrown terrorist. The same year’s Blown Away offered some faux-IRA blarney, while True Lies gave us no messing around from Jimbo with some straight-up Middle Eastern varmints (Crimson Jihad no less – Cameron set the scene for the US’s war on larger-than-life Muslim boogeymen). Speed ditches the personal betrayal element by passing over “Harry as bad guy” but retains a hint of an inside job/reflection of the corruption inherent in the system riff by making Payne a former bomb squad officer.

Payne’s motivation, one might suggest, is rather prosaic, though, since his American dream has failed to pay up (“This is about my money, this is about money due to me! Which I will collect! 3.7 million dollars! It’s my nest egg, Jack. At my age, you have to think ahead…”) Like Michael Douglas in the previous year’s Falling Down, Payne bought into a fantasy that failed to deliver. D-Fens didn’t get the ever-devoted wife and family and secure job for life, while Payne finished up maimed and pensioned off. Of course, in both cases any underlying legitimacy to these out-of-control crazies’ gripes is undermined by the protagonist, positioned as either simply a better person in every way (Jack) or the one who perseveres and comes out the better man (Robert Duvall’s Prendergast). And there’s also that the last thing on Hopper’s mind is giving Payne anything less than a cartoon sensibility.

So Keanu is at his most likeable, while also looking a bit more rugged than usual with that buzz cut (it doesseem to have an effect on his performance, making him more no-nonsense while avoiding the impersonal). Bullock had made an impression in the previous year’s Demolition Man (again, making Sly look good and even funny in their scenes together). So it’s just a shame she’d so rarely find roles worthy of her talents. This was Keanu’s second pairing with Hopper – they were previously together in the memorably twisted River’s Edge (1986) – and Speed represents a kind of second go-round at star status, in a way, even though it was only three years since Point Break (he’d be doing it again five years later with The Matrix). He was right to avoid the sequel, which goes without saying, although he still managed to make Chain Reaction (1996) – during his very brief “fat” phase – so no one is perfect.

That he didn’t return for Speed 2 ensures there’s little lasting backwash polluting this one. Which means Speed also serves as a reminder why most of the Die Hard sequels didn’t work as well either; first you need the relationships in place, from partner, to love interest, to antagonist. And then, you need someone who can make the action work.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.