Smartorhypo
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Kinley
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
KaZenPhi
It's interesting to revisit movies I've seen a lot as a child either on grainy VHS or on tiny TV sets in their full splendor on recent HD releases. For a fan of movies this is one of the best possible future dystopias. The landscape of action cinema has changed dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years. With the dominance of comic book movies there are a lot more movies with action in them but fewer films that I would actually call action movies, ie where action has a meaning, drives the plot and the emotional connection with the audience forward and has a palpable danger that keeps you on the edge of your seat. In a lot of big modern movies the action lacks weight, both physically and emotionally, a notable if rare exception being Mad Max Fury Road. Furthermore they fail to tell action with a keen sense of the visual language of cinema. The late eighties to mid nineties gave us a few classics that might not have been smart movies but were made in incredibly smart ways, like the first die hard, terminator 2 or speed. Despite being completely dissimilar they share a few key elements that make them stand the test of time. The most important element being rhythm. Much like a musical piece there's tension and relaxation and exciting action doesn't work without build-up and the investment of the audience. This also translates into the visuals as well. It is much more evident in the golden age of Hong Kong action in the eighties, where the fight movies can be registered as elaborately choreographed dance moves, but Hollywood action used to share this strength albeit done with different props. For people who only watch movies and have never worked in the medium itself this may sound strange or unbelievable but a movie constantly leads the attention of your eyes from one point to another, much like a stage magician, and composing an image, especially one in motion is a tough challenge. So even movies that noone would call art because of their banal content can be serious pieces of art if you ask me.Speaking of which the premise of Speed is simple and genius for a thriller (although not entirely original since it was already done in a similar fashion in the japanese movie "shinkansen" decades before) it's almost a parody. If you were to scribble out the set-pieces for someone who hasn't seen the movie it would sound like the most absurd trash imaginable, however the language or should I say magic of cinema makes it work and Jan DeBont sells it to you piece by piece, much like John McTiernan and James Cameron did in their prime. What surprised me most about Speed upon revisiting it after many years is how gorgeously it is shot. DeBont's main strength as a cinematographer is showing strongly and fortunately it's not just eye-candy as the bone and grisl of the action is captured perfectly. There was some serious thought put into how to tell this movie visually that I miss in a lot of modern blockbusters. Think of a Tony Scott movie but less ridiculous. To be fair though 1995 would see the rise of Michael Bay, a vulgar plagiarist without taste and flair where every shot is so over-engineered and polished as to be absolutely meaningless. I can see how a parallel universe Speed may have looked like under his direction and I shudder. Not everything is shiny in retroland.As for the few negatives: Reeves (whom I honestly love as an actor) is a bit wooden, Dennis Hopper is hamming it up like crazy and despite the great presentation the finale goes a bit too much over the top and thus loses a lot of the believability that made the rest of the movie so exciting. A smaller scale would have been preferable here. Earlier in the film when we see Reeves just centimeters above the asphalt at breakneck speed we get a better sense of danger than can be achieved with the special effects shots of the ending.Still, a simple and entertaining movie that doesn't insult your intelligence, with relateable characters with enough nuance that they feel like people. Speed doesn't pretend to have a deep plot and lofty messages, it's just there to take you on a ride - and after being inundated with comic book movies good and bad the last ten years that simplicity and honesty is very refreshing.
stormhawk2018
A movie from start to finish, full of unbridled action, explosive and crazy, with a few comic touches, but all with order.And it is that this film are the ones that you get to see them and if you have to see it again does not matter. The film begins and the action and tension can be felt at first, and one can imagine what awaits him, but as the minutes progress, the film becomes more and more interesting, and it fills up scene after scene of emotion and action, and leaving no room for boredom and laziness.As usual, many movies of this type, have a fast, hurried and meaningless end, but in the case of this movie, it has nothing to do with it, but rather the opposite and where it leaves one with desire that the film does not end there and follow.Finally to point out that an action movie, you have to know how to act and know how to put faces, and in this both Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock do it like nobody else, getting the viewer to the feelings and emotions and involving them in every situation of danger.
Byrdz
If I had written a review of "Speed" in 1994, it would have praised the special effects, the thrills, the tension, the uber-villainy, the charming comic relationship between Keanu and Sandy ...BUT: I watched "Speed" this week for the first time since 1994. The world has changed. Totally and irreversibly changed. Villainy is real and in our face. Explosions occur on a daily basis. It's just not fun to watch any more.It was a good movie. I supposed that it still is. It's just that I could not enjoy it the way that I did back then.
Leofwine_draca
This high-octane thriller is a pretty good example of 'does what it says on the tin' film-making. There's a bus that'll explode if it slows down. End of story. The concept in itself is workable, but the film, directed by Jan De Bont's sure hand, is excellent, a real action classic with super-fast pacing and a storyline that never lets up. Things kick off with a tense rescue-trapped-passengers-in-an-elevator bid and are enlivened by an exploding bus shock scene.We're then into the heart of the story, on board of a primed-to-explode bus, and all the genre clichés are in place, albeit in a slick and well-oiled form. Keanu Reeves plays the young hero (not as good as in THE MATRIX but pretty good) and Dennis Hopper is his overacting nemesis, chewing the scenery with relish. There's a heady combination of stunt work, sudden death, explosions, and tense shoot-outs and the film truly lives up to its "Die Hard on a bus" tagline. The only weak links are a hang-dog Jeff Daniels, miscast in a non-comedic role, and Sandra Bullock, whose ditzy, screamy heroine quickly becomes grating. An intelligent script is the real highlight of this slightly workmanlike, but nonetheless excellent, thriller.
