Movie Review: Fast & Furious (2009)


The pickings must be slim for Vin Diesel and Paul Walker these days. How else can you explain why they would come back to star in Fast and Furious when they left the series on high notes after The Fast and the Furious eight years ago? You can’t, and this half-hearted attempt to recapture what the franchise lost guarantees the pickings for these guys will remain slim at best.

Anyways, since they had the audacity to star in this movie and I made the mistake of watching it, let me go through the motions of telling you why you shouldn’t.

If you recall from the first flick, Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) was an FBI agent sent to infiltrate the car theft ring led by Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel). He fell in love with Dominic’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), got caught up in the rice racer atmosphere and ultimately let Dominic escape. Now they’re both inexplicably back, teaming up in a mutually beneficial alliance to infiltrate the empire of a drug kingpin known as Braga.

There’s not much else to say, other than the plot is so paper thin it is transparent. Writer Chris Morgan tries to spice this weak, seen it before story by infusing some nagging nuances to spice Fast and Furious up like: Dom still being a wanted man and Brian still being an agent of the law, and Brian having dumped Mia years ago and her not being so happy about seeing him again. Perhaps there could have been something more to these nods to the original but since the characters are so one-dimensional and poorly acted out, what little tension and resolution there is doesn’t mean a thing.

And then I realized, Fast and Furious could have had its story centered around barehanded fishing for catfish in a backwoods Georgia lake and it wouldn’t have mattered — it’s all about the flashy neon cars that make high pitched whining sounds when revved hard, heart pounding and reckless street racing, and the flashy broads who love them both. There’s plenty of all three to get the Need For Speed addicts, whom I presume this movie was made for, all sweaty palmed and blurry-eyed.

Problem is, aside from the opening sequence in which Toretto and team hijack a tanker truck while moving, there isn’t much to the races/chases to see that hasn’t been done a hundred times before. Hell, at least the utter mess that was The Fast and the Furious:Tokyo Drift showcased a new aspect of racing known as drifting. Things get so bad in this installment that two nearly identical chase scenes are filmed in the same “tunnel” between Mexico and the U.S. (I guess $85 million for production doesn’t cover what it used to).

I do have to credit to the marketers of the film though as they really got the tagline right for Fast and Furious. It reads: ‘New Model. Original Parts.’ It’s the first time I’ve seen truth in advertising although they could have gone a bit further with it. It probably should have read: ‘Same as the First. Only More Expensive and a Whole Lot Dumber.’

Critical Movie Critic Rating:
1 Star Rating: Stay Away

1

Movie Review: Knowing (2009)
Movie Review: Tyson (2008)

The Critical Movie Critics

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.


'Movie Review: Fast & Furious (2009)' have 9 comments

  1. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 6, 2009 @ 6:46 am Pete

    If you were looking for an Oscar worthy movie out of this of course you were going to be disappointed. Its a decent action flick, not as good as the previous movies but good enough.

    Reply

  2. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 7, 2009 @ 3:37 pm sam

    These movie is a whole lot better than other car movies, there is style, music, cars, girls, races, what more do you want. this is not suppose to give you a superb storyline, its meant to entertain, and it succeeds in doing just that.

    Reply

  3. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 7, 2009 @ 5:37 pm General Disdain

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. There wasn’t anything entertaining about this movie. Like I mentioned in my review, the only halfway decent action came at the beginning. Otherwise, it was all rehashed crap.

    Reply

  4. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 14, 2009 @ 6:30 am george

    i didnt like it han is alive so that ruins it from the begining and plus vin gets put in prison at the end wasnt happy about that races were typical and boring toyko drift had more of a story happening 6/10 for me very disapointed

    Reply

  5. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 16, 2009 @ 4:26 am Bruxism

    I really liked the first Fast & Furious film. Whilst I’m not surprised that this new one is rubbish it is a shame. Thanks for the review; I won’t be rushing out to see this.

    Reply

  6. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 17, 2009 @ 10:15 pm Sally

    I loved this movie! It was exciting. I liked how each time they make a movie they go to a different place and include other cultures. I enjoyed seeing them together again. I’d like for them to make one with all the main actors. Great Job for the type of movie it is…fun, entertaining, you don’t have to do a lot of thinking so it’s relaxing.

    Reply

  7. The Critical Movie Critics

    April 20, 2009 @ 10:07 pm Anh Khoi Do

    I agree that the story of the film is not much of a gem here despite the fact that I found the film a little bit entertaining. In addition to the poor dialogues and the cold performance by the cast, I was dismayed that the plot doesn’t involve any confrontation of principles between Dom and Brian. In fact, how does a cop tries to put his interest together with someone who is clearly out for revenge? The film doesn’t delve into the character’s psyche at the expense of the action scenes which obviously look all alike (except for the first action scene).

    Finally, there’s one praise that I’d make for the film. In fact, unlike the two previous instalments, this one is not a parade of clichés that you see in cop and, in the case of the third film, teenager films.

    Reply

  8. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 1, 2009 @ 4:48 pm phillip

    I think the movie was a lot better than the last three the person who wrote the review Obviously dont know what the hell hes talking about. If not for the same cast being in it i would have not watched the movie. I like how they used famous cars like the year one Trans Am and the F-bomb but this guy probably dont know what those are maybe he should stick to Chick Flicks.

    Reply

  9. The Critical Movie Critics

    May 1, 2009 @ 5:50 pm General Disdain

    @ phillip,

    So if the original cast wasn’t starring in this, you wouldn’t have watched it? Why not? It still has famous cars like the year one Trans Am and the F-Bomb Camaro . . .

    Reply


Come Join the Conversation (or Start It)

Privacy Policy | About Us

 | Log in

Advertisment ad adsense adlogger