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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

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 .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.