Speed

It's been years since I've seen this, and I'm sort of going to go through my thoughts from back then and now. And the 1990's was the era I was obsessed with film critics, and I recall this movie got really good reviews. My impression back in the day was also extremely favorable. My impression now is even more-so. And frankly, that surprises me. Going in I expected it to be a bit mid-90's cringe. Why?

I would not have considered myself a liberal back in the 1990's. But there were two well-known liberals back then that I dug: Michael Moore and Janeane Garofalo. Now in the intervening years since, I'm become disgusted to learn that Moore is full of crap and always has been. Whatever opinions he has, he doesn't come by them honestly. Perhaps he did once upon a time, but as far as current political commentary goes, he's a very dishonest broker. And I loved Roger & Me, and TV Nation, so it was a disappointment to realize that as time went on.

I'm learning here Garofalo must be full of crap too. Because I remember back in the 1990's, I think on The Tonight Show, she took a very public dump on this beloved movie, and even though I loved the movie I took what she was saying at face value. I thought it was funny that she hated a movie everyone loved. I especially found it interesting that her complaints were down to supposed racial stereotypes in the movie. So I expected to feel like I do when watching a LOT of movies from the 1980's, and seeing minority representation as a complete stereotype or joke.

Except it doesn't exist in this movie at all. I am admittedly a white dude, and not the best guy to judge racial sensitivities, but essentially I would call Garofalo's complaints as down to being upset black people are involved in funny scenes and speak in Ebonics like real people do. According to Garofalo, Ally Extraordinaire, unless all black people talk like Cliff Huxtable on-screen, they are clearly a stereotype. This kind of thinking is the precise reason nobody took liberals seriously back then. White liberals back then took just as much ownership of how black people should act and be portrayed in fiction as white conservatives did. The only difference was the reason for their complaints. Maybe as a white guy it's not appropriate for me to even comment about this. But it's really annoying that a movie with a bunch of awesome black characters, none of which die by the way, Garofalo is calling them stereotypes for speaking realistically for black people who lived in L.A. in 1994.

The first moment I knew Garofalo was full of crap, and that I'd like the movie again no matter what she claimed back then, (AND that I'd be dunking on her now), is the moment where Jack hijacks the black guy's sports car. The guy is outraged and yells that the car is his and isn't stolen, and then Jack points his gun at him, and says it is now. Basically this movie addressed the idea of cops unfairly stopping and profiling successful black people with nice cars. And for a supposed ally, it's shocking (although perhaps not) that Garofalo misses the importance and significance of this scene entirely because the character isn't speaking English in the manner she believes he should be speaking it.

I mentioned I wasn't a liberal in the mid-90's. Mostly because I thought most of the most visible liberals back then were kind of tiresome. I tolerated Moore and Garofalo because they were funny. But even if I think I was stupid for my earlier conservatism, I recognize exactly why I was tired of listening to most liberals back in the 1990's. White liberals in particular were outraged at things that were no big deal. And 25 years later, when there ARE legitimate things for us to be outraged about, nobody takes the movement seriously. And there is no greater overreach for political correctness than to say Speed is racially insensitive.

I LOVE political correctness by the way. It give me the license to call a racist dillweed a racist dillweed and not feel bad about it. In the 1990's liberals were abusing that privilege, and hitting targets, like the movie Speed, that didn't deserve it.

For the record, Garofalo has been in almost no movies as good as Speed is, so she probably shouldn't be throwing poor-quality stones. The only movie she's done comparable to this in quality is Wet Hot American Summer. And while I can never fully dismiss any actor who appeared in that awesome film, that's the only awesome film and franchise she's appeared in. She has no credibility on this specific subject.

One more critical note: I recall that back in the day Siskel and Ebert were very impressed with the moment where Jack loses his cool and essentially throws a childish temper tantrum when he finds out Harry was killed. I agree with why they were impressed with it. It's not something you're supposed to show the hero doing. And yet it's realistic and understandable, and something the rest of us would be doing in that exact circumstance. Fiction was doing heroes no favors back then by having them act so stoically and outside of how real people act. The realism of the moment is impressive and unusual for 1994.

One of the neat things about the movie is that it's essentially three movies in one. The bus thing is the best and longest part (and the most memorable) but the crises in the elevator before it and the subway at the end are just as thrilling. And they all deal with velocity, which makes the bland and unhelpful-sounding title make sense after you see the movie. Arrested Development isn't a good name for a TV show either. But like Speed, it fits after you've seen it.

The score is great, even if the Billy Idol end credits song "Speed" is not. The song is so bad I was tempted to deduct half a star from the grade, but that would just be petty.

So I think I should now discuss why I loved the movie. And I suppose it's the same reason most people did. But I'm not sure a ton of critics verbalized quite it right. But all throughout the movie, the civilians and good guys are resourceful and handed victories over impossible odds. You cheer at the fact that these heroes survive. Only two civilians that we met died in the movie. Jack saved the rest, and for many of them, they saved each other. A feel-good action movie where innocent bodies aren't dropping left and right for shock value? Whoever heard of such a thing?

The film was called a "crowd-pleaser", and I think that's the description that fits it best. Believe it or not, audiences are PLEASED to see good things happen to people in trouble, and not repeatedly punished for winding up caring about characters. We're not the bad guys. We did nothing wrong. Sometimes it's okay to show a hero as competent as Jack taking care of business. Audience LIKE happy endings. Who knew?

Also for the record, whenever I see Dom Toretto calmly jump a 50 foot chasm with his hot rod in a Fast & Furious movie with no sweat, it's actually ho-hum. To see a busful of frightened people do it and see them scream in joy that they are still alive afterwards? That's movie magic right there. I don't care what anyone else says.

The pop quiz bits were kind of funny (but overplayed in ensuing popular culture references) but the shooting the hostage idea was hilarious, because as seen with Harry, it actually worked. And as horrible an idea as it is, I suspect it would work in real life too. The Mad Bomber looks at Jack as if he's out of his mind when he did it, which was the best reason of all to do it.

So yeah, Janeane Garofalo is full of crap, and I was right that it WAS a great movie. I remembered correctly. Except it was even better than I remembered. *****.