Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw

The only thing this movie has in common with the F&F franchise is the main duo. It wants to resemble Mission: Impossible, but it most closely resembles G.I. Joe. It’s saved only by its similarities to Moana, but it’s a lot more stupid, which is a paradox, given that it’s intended for an adult audience. Only ten percent of the jokes are funny, the buddy chemistry is poor (the first encounter in the glass office, WTF?), and of all the action scenes, only the last one is interesting. (26.08.2019)

I got what I expected. Hobbs and Shaw is a spectacular action film in which reality has nothing to do, and the closer it gets to its end, the more elaborate, insane and bigger it gets. And given that the power plant here blows up somewhere around the 70th minute, you probably have an idea of what it looks like at the end. David Leitch has approached this Fast and Furious spin-off as a modern adrenaline-packed Bond film, but unlike, say, xXx, it works brilliantly. Jason Statham and The Rock are great in both the action scenes and the moments when they're bantering. Idris Elba also nails the bad guy, and Vanessa Kirby is not only sexy, but she manages to keep up with the heroes in the action scenes as well. The only thing that bothered me is that Hobbs and Shaw didn't take the opportunity to be significantly different than the franchise it came from. I was hoping that they the film would push the envelope a lot more, and that the kind of futile attempt to look serious and earnest that we've been seeing from Vin Diesel for a few years now would disappear. Hobbs and Shaw have the chops to put their own face on it and step in a slightly different direction. But they were a little afraid to do it the first time, and when they did, they were a little clumsy. On the other hand, that's also why I hope they get at least one more chance. (01.08.2019)

Is it just me that feels like A-list popcorn cinema is getting more and more dimwitted? Kudos to the exceptions, like Christopher Nolan, who have set the bar high and are not about to lower it. At the opposite pole is this horrible trainwreck, like written by five-year old boys, starting with the futile humour, zero chemistry between the main actors, ending with the five thousandth or so variation on a stolen planet-wide deadly virus (again?) and an upgraded human terminator who has wandered in from another genre – some sci-fi Asylum production. And, to top it all off, an indulgent, smiling Ryan Reynolds and with him, the stupid Kevin Hart. Nobody laughed in the whole cinema, nobody, even though the filmmakers were smashing their jokes on your face like stinking socks and screaming at you: “Laugh! This is funny!!!” Well, sorry, scriptwriting impotents, I didn’t have any fun. (07.08.2019)

Hobbs & Shaw is this year’s biggest guilty pleasure thanks to the ingenious use of parallel editing (the duality of the introductory sequence reminded me of Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train), Vanessa Kirby and the quoting of Nietzsche. The film becomes doubly entertaining when you notice how it reflects the career development and media image of both protagonists: Dwayne Johnson as a Samoan warrior who immediately enchants everyone with his charisma and Jason Statham as an elegant British criminal who once did a job in Italy. In the context of changes in the action genre, Hobbs & Shaw is characterised both by a distinctive female lead and by its approximation of comic-book films featuring teams of superheroes. Idris Elba plays a villain who has high-tech toys like Iron Man and refers to himself as a black Superman, while Johnson and Statham are essentially indestructible superheroes. Of course, success is only achievable through cooperation, not individually. Thanks to the emphasis on family relationships, which the filmmakers brought to Hobbs & Shaw from previous instalments of the Fast & Furious franchise, this play on sentimentality does not come across as fake, in contrast to the bombastic action. On the contrary, beyond the exploding factories, flying cars and other mechanically and precisely managed over-the-top situations, it ensures that you are aware of understandable human emotions and values ​​with which the viewer can identify. From the perspective of the genre’s history (and the filmic representation of masculinity), it is a stimulating mix of bluntly straightforward, hypermasculine ’80s action, ’90s self-ironic postmodernism and a family-oriented comic-book blockbuster. 80% (05.08.2019)

A spin-off that could have taken a step aside and "grounded" the franchise from overblown CGI escapades that squander the undeniable testosterone potential, into less overblown macho action with a top-notch central duo that has a workable "dude bro" chemistry between them. It could have been a blockbuster in the style of Tango & Cash. The result, however, is a behemoth with cyborgs, Transformers bikes, programmable viruses, even more overblown scenes with a green screen behind Rock and Statham, Spectre/Hydra and an overblown running time. This is G.I. Joe III more than anything. And on top of that, the central duo, whom the filmmakers let squirm in one "I've got bigger balls than you" position for the entire film, they are (childishly) funny at first, but they squander it over the course of more than two hours. Still, it has a few solid moments, a few glimpses of guilty pleasure scenes and especially in the first half it moves along, before things get good for an hour in Russia and Samoa. (06.08.2019)