It’s a stew of “hilarious” toxic masculinity and nonstop violence as the solution to all problems. You know, for kids! (This movie is rated as suitable for tweens on both sides of the Atlantic.) We are beset by movies like Hobbs & Shaw because everything is “ironic” and everything is a joke and we all just need some “entertainment” and some “diversion” from horrible fucking reality. Well, I am here to tell you that the likes of Hobbs & Shaw — and especially this particular movie — are part of the problem that is horrible fucking reality.
It’s not ironic, however, that this movie had a huge hit opening on the same weekend during which two mass shootings in the United States by angry young white men dominated the news cycle and contributed to horrible fucking reality. It’s just goddamn foreseeable.
No, I’m not saying that violent movies cause mass shootings. They don’t, no more so than violent video games do. It’s perfectly clear that ready access to military-style weapons is what makes mass shootings possible… and I don’t think there’s any question that if other nations besides the US offered ready access to military-style weapons, those other nations would have more mass shootings too. Because what causes young men to want to perpetrate mass shootings is shit like the attitudes on display here. In movies like this one, which are enormously popular all over the planet.
Please note that I’m not even blaming this movie, nor am I suggesting that any movies — or games or anything else — should be banned. (Except guns. Guns should be banned. For fuck’s sake already.) I’m blaming the culture that makes it possible for movies like this one to get made and to be so immensely popular. This movie — this tediously familiar, dully predictable movie — is a symptom, not a cause. Ideally, we would get to a place where movies like Hobbs & Shaw are utter flops, totally money-losing propositions, because the antediluvian ideas they embody are considered laughably, pathetically outmoded, and no one wanted to spend two-plus hours wallowing in them.
DO NOT EVEN with the “but one of the heroes is a man of color.” I know The Rock ain’t white. I even see that, offscreen, he seems to be a decent human being, and a decent man, and maybe even one who is pushing back against the toxic masculinity that is killing all of us, male and female and everyone else, literally and figuratively. But this is not reflected onscreen.
Hobbs & Shaw is a movie, an “entertainment,” that, at best, allows his character, secret operative of a vague American security agency, to make absentminded nods toward healthier perspectives on modern manhood — he has a charming relationship with his little daughter! they eat pancakes together! — while overtly having him engage in “comedic” trading of insults with another man over much more socially dominant, much more bullshit ideas about manliness… which pretty much come down to how well they can inflict physical damage on other human beings. And also over the size of their dicks.
This is a movie in which two ostensibly adult men literally discuss the size of their penises AS IF THIS HAS ANY BEARING ON ANYTHING INCLUDING THEIR APPEAL TO WOMEN. (There is no appreciation here for the fact that obsessions with the size of one’s penis and with one’s ability to hurt other people are functions of insecurity and of immaturity, and nothing to be proud of, and nothing to be boasting about out loud.) This is also literally a movie in which one of the men polices an adult woman’s potential sexual interest in the other one of them, because of the absurd notion that it is the job of manly men to own “their” women and make decisions for them and to prevent unauthorized sexual access to them.
This is where some of this movie’s intended audience will jump in and mansplain to me that there’s nothing wrong with Shaw (Jason Statham: The Meg, The Fate of the Furious) warning Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson: Fighting with My Family, Rampage) off having any romantic or sexual interest in Shaw’s sister, Hattie (Vanessa Kirby: Mission: Impossible – Fallout, Me Before You), because that’s a man’s right, to “protect” his female property from any male attention that he disapproves of. But you would be wrong about this, you pitiable losers: you do not get to tell your sisters whom they may screw, or fall in love with, or do anything the fuck at all with. (Also, oh yes, LET US ABSOLUTELY discuss the optics of a white man telling a black man to stay away from his sister.) Hattie is in her 30s and a badass MI6 agent who is clearly able to take care of herself and would have no trouble fending off any unwanted interest from even The Rock. But the movie still apparently believes that it’s “humorous” and “entertaining” for us to witness two men discussing whether one of them may be “permitted” sexual access to the other’s sibling. Just two manly men squaring off in the way that manly man whom we should emulate and respect gonna do.
ABSOLUTELY LET US also discuss the fact that Hattie is continually and universally referred to as “the girl” by everyone onscreen, which is incredibly obnoxiously sexist and is a thing that absolutely needs to die, onscreen and off. (If you don’t understand why this is a problem, think about how adult men would react to being called “boy,” and think about the few contexts in which that does actually happen. Nothing about it is good or indicative of a healthy relationship or a positive appreciation of the agency of the person in question.) It’s also possible for Hattie to be continually referred to as “the girl” only because she is darn near the only human female to appear onscreen for most of the movie. If there were genuinely only a handful of living female members of the homo sapiens species on the planet, this movie would barely look or sound different than what we see here, in a story seemingly set in the real world in which women constitute *checks notes* slightly more than half the population, and also coexist with many many men to whom they are not biologically related. (We also must note that actor Lori Pelenise Tuisano [Fun Size] looks to be about the same age as the 47-year-old The Rock… and she’s playing his character’s mother. I cannot find any reference to her age online; she might even be younger than Johnson. *grrrr*)
Plot? You need plot when clearly Hobbs & Shaw has little interest in anything beyond men proclaiming their social, cultural, and physical dominance? Okay, so a guy called Brixton (Idris Elba: Avengers: Infinity War, Molly’s Game), who’s been Six Million Dollar Man–esque upgraded by a “secret tech cult,” is after a genetically programmable supervirus that could wipe out humanity, or at least the demographic slices of humanity that the cult deems undesirable. And Shaw, Hobbes, and Hattie (note how she gets only a first name *grrrr*) have to stop him, and the cult. This “secret tech cult” is obvs evil, because they want to wipe out weaklings and unwanteds and so on. But Brixton keeps talking about how “unevolved” Hobbs and Shaw are… which they are, in personal and cultural senses. Eugenics as a way to justify killing people is bad; this goes without saying (I hope). Making a sly joke about how “unenvolved” men, as Hobbs and Shaw are, win the day, as of course they do, is just a dick move. This movie thinks it can have its woke cake — “Nazi shit is bad!” — and eat it too: “Hur hur, unevolved manly man who ain’t into pussy shit are what we need to save the world!”
*pinches bridge of nose in exasperation*
(Also this: Naming a black British villain Brixton is like naming an African-American villain Bronx or Compton. Thank you, white dude screenwriters Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce, who probably thought this was edgy. *sigh*)
But hey, let’s say you’re able to see past or forgive all this bullshit, then you’ve got yourself a great odd-couple buddy action comedy, the movie Hobbs & Shaw thinks it is, right? Nope. The level of “humor” here, when it isn’t outright sexist and isn’t “jokes” about balls and dicks, makes me think of Rusty in Ocean’s Eleven saying, “Be funny but don’t make ’em laugh”: You can recognize that a line here or there is intended to make you laugh, but they never do, except accidentally, when the movie is trying to be serious with such pseudo philosophizing as “In life, things happen.” The action is characterized by Looney Tunes physics — often faked with really bad green screen — and yet nothing about any of it, from the car chases to the hand-to-hand combat, is energetic or visually compelling.
It’s impossible to believe that this was directed by David Leitch, who gave us the thrillingly kinetic, often downright balletic battles of John Wick and Atomic Blonde. This might be because both Johnson and Statham were allowed to dictate precisely how they got beat up onscreen, which apparently meant “not at all”: they may throw punches and kicks, but the actors never wanted to be seen as real human beings who are bodily vulnerable and can be hurt. How are we supposed to believe they’re ever in any danger if they’re impervious to injury? Violence free of all consequence to the (allegedly) righteous men doling it out is another HUGELY problematic notion that needs to die now. (We could also talk about the fact that Shaw has previously been nothing but a villain, a man who killed a member of the F&F posse to send a message to the others and perpetrated enormous damage to property and to utterly innocent people to avenge his also-villainous brother. How is Shaw suddenly heroic?)
Look, even if all you want is another Fast & Furious movie full of muscle cars vroom-vrooming, you won’t even get that here. Has a franchise ever drifted so far from its roots? The original F&F may have been emotionally histrionic, but at least it was physically grounded and plausible. With Hobbs & Shaw, we are now fully in a realm of science-fantasy nonsense. It’s not even fair to call this cartoonish, because it’s utterly lacking in the satire and social commentary that, say, Bugs Bunny had to offer. (And before anyone pipes up with “Oh, I suppose the Roadrunner was satirical,” yes it fucking was. You think Wile E. Coyote’s capitalistic crutch that was the Acme Corporation wasn’t satire?) The only thing it does well is reinforce a damaging cultural status quo, which is precisely what we do not need more of right now.
see also:
• The Fast and the Furious and 2 Fast 2 Furious (review)
• The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (review)
• Fast & Furious (review)
• Fast Five (aka Fast and Furious 5: Rio Heist) (review)
• The Grating Toretto, by Nick Carraway (Fast & Furious 6 review)
• Fast & Furious 7 (aka Furious 7) movie review: head-on vehicular hard-on
• Fast & Furious 8 (aka The Fate of the Furious) movie review: notes from the critics’ ward
This is a bad movie, and even as an F&F fan, I think it stinks, but Hattie has a last name, because “Shaw” is Deckard Shaw’s last name. (Although you could turn around and ask what “Mama” Shaw’s first name is.)
Hattie may have a last name, but I don’t think she’s ever called by it. She’s just “Hattie.” Only Deckard gets to be “Shaw.”
I suppose we should consider it a blessing that (as far I can recall) she is never called “the Shaw girl.”
Anyone who has read some of the comments conservative critics have been writing about the recent Quentin Tarantino movie Once Upon a Time in Hollywood can’t help but find comments like this to be hilarious.
I’m not sure what would qualify as conservitive vs liberal critics, I don’t apply politics to entertainment as I don’t find politics entertaining.
But that said, I do know that Tarrantino is in an online flame war with Bruce Lees daughter over how he depicted Bruce in his latest movie, even Bruce Lee’s students and former co-stars are chiming in against Tarantino and calling him a racist.
I wouldn’t call him that, but I would call him arrogant. There’s a weird trend in hollywood to depict heroic icons, both fictional and real life, in a negative light and frankly, I consider it in pretty poor taste. People need their heroes to look up too. Seems defacing and devaluing them is just sabotaging your client base.
Oddly enough, I haven’t heard about that flame war.
The main review I’ve read thus far was a review in The Atlantic — ironically by a female film critic — that received a link on the Rod Dreher site — though Dreher had a bit to say about the film too if I recall correctly.
I’ll look that up, should be… informative.
I studied Bruce Lee’s life and career a great deal when I took up martial arts for fitness sake. Jackie Chan’s account of meeting him back when he was doing extra/stunt work is quite amusing. All recollections of his students, co workers, and family recall a man who was passionate, confident, yet empathetic and humble except when being met with racism which he intensely opposed, a little too intensely sometimes. His dedication to his art and philosophy is also legendary
I also respect Shannon Lee a great deal and she’s done a lot of fantastic work. She’s definitely her fathers daughter in many regards and I’ve always felt the palpable hero worship she has for Bruce and his memory.
I also respect Tarantino, but he definitely crossed a line here however unintentionally. I liken this to George Lucas and the “questionable” accents he recorded for Jar Jar Binks and the Trade Federation aliens in the Phantom Menace back in 1999, both of which got dialed back considerably in later projects. Clearly nothing was intended, but you can see how others took it that way. It was to his credit he took onus. I think Tarantino should do the same.
Good review. I liked everything you said. Especially liked the line about naming a black Brit “Brixton” is like name a black American “Compton.” Racist? Yes, and such a clueless white guy thing to do because I know they thought they were being clever.
This review is spot on, but I enjoyed the movie anyway. I’m just a sucker for the two stars. Guilty pleasure with a capital G.
2019 has shown me two things I now want from ALL movies:
1. They should all be presented by Fast and Furious.
2. They should all star Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson.
Wow that was an angry review. Wasnt going to see it but think I’ll see it now. Sounds awesome!
Something wrong with anger?
That’s one way that criticism works: to direct you toward movies you might want to see.
I was a little surprised to see this movie got 2 stars in the end. I was expecting one or maybe even none based on the review. Was there something slightly redeeming in it? Was The Rock at least likeable and appealing, earning a second star all on his own?
Two stars doesn’t mean there’s anything redeeming in the movie. It means it’s not awful as some other movies. That’s it.
No, The Rock was not particularly appealing or charming here. Alas.
Now part of me really wants to see that — even though I think it’s about as likely as a movie version of Jane Austen’s Fight Club…
I am Heathcliff.
–Michelle Rodriguez, Fast & Furious Presents Wuthering Heights
Jesus.. I hate your review… It’s just a movie you feminist, anti male miserable old woman. Chill out and remove the stick that’s up your ass
@Matchu Thanks, seems that most on here as something stuck up their ass, these are still the people that went and saw the movie anyway 🤣
wow … right to the bingo board… you might have two or three squares there right off.
Feminist art criticism has been a recognized genre of art criticism since the 1970s. The analysis is still valid, whether or not you like it.
Banned.
I have a much higher tolerance for dumb films than Johanson, but I haven’t watched a Fast/Furious film yet and I don’t intend to start now. I can’t even count on my fingers, toes, and other available appendages how many films like this Jason Statham has been in… has he done anything else? Can he do anything else?
Statham is good in The Bank Job…
And I loved Safe.
Ah, yes, I loved him in Safe too.
I also liked Statham in Homefront.
As I noted in my review of The Meg, Stath’s best costar seems to be a tween girl. I suspect because they’re not overly impressed by him and so become smart matches for his macho crap.
This article talks about white men the way Hitler used to speak about Jews.
Also I’ll wager a princely sum that if the characters were changed to women and nothing else, this article would be a glowing five star review.
Sir, the word you’re looking for is “feminazi.”
I’ll match that bet, and raise you “You don’t know the first thing about gender dynamics, gender politics, how the patriarchy works, stereotypes of the depiction of women onscreen and in the culture at large–”
Oh, I could go on and on, but you don’t want to hear it. You just wanted to call me a feminazi but didn’t even know the word. LOL.
No, I wanted to call your nonsense for what it what it is. Hateful, bigoted, contemptful of anything masculine to the point of utter irrationality equal to what caused one of the greatest inhuman acts of cruelty ever documented.
Patriarchy is a term that should be used for euro-world history. Last I checked most western regions fall under democracy or associated systems.
Gender Politics? Gender Dynamics? Sounds like thorough indoctrination and defenses similar to what history remembers hitler performing. Didn’t he tell the world they had no idea what the german people had suffered or their social dynamics?
Those who do not learn from history…
But I should say I appreciate your agreement and acquiescence to the point that if this did feature to female leads you would have scored it higher. That does take a fair amount of humility and onus, and its to be respected.
So much irony! Delightful!
Irony is Ra-a-ain on your wedding day.
The fact that attitudes like yours are common? It’s closer to a horror story. One that’s already been told and recorded and should not bear repeating. I’m just glad my part of the world is being spared that madness thus far, but I feel for those who have to face this on the other side of the pond.
Those who fight monsters should take great care they themselves do not become monsters.
She didn’t acquiesce. She agreed to see your bet and raise it. That means she is betting against you.
No, it means shes Obfuscating and rather poorly. Also known as changing the goal post, smoke screening, and trying to shift the point. It’s what people do when they know full well they have no argument or leg to stand on and try to shift the discussion in their favor.
And joking aside, I do appreciate she abandoned her half hearted defense. I say that without sarcasm or derision. Its nobler, more respectable and respectful to give up an argument you’ve lost, recognize that defeat and to sharpen your talking points than to give an argument that is metaphorically sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “LALALALALALALALALALALA CANTHEARYOU LALLALALALALALALA”
It’s adorable how you’re interpreting my complete lack of interest in spending my valuable time educating you, who have clearly indicated you have no interest in listening.
So defeating your argument equates to not listening to you?
I had more respect for you when you simply bowed out.
Its also important to note, I’m not American. I have no stake in your socio-politics coming or going. I’m neither for or against whatever policies or indoctrination you want to call on to justify yourself.
I’d also not speak of my worst enemy or animals the way you refer to men of white skin. It’s scary to say the least. I don’t care how you think you or anyone in society has been wronged, or even if the wrongs are legitimate. The minute hate is the answer over self betterment and self-care, what have you become other than the fanatic Nietzsche spoke of?
At this point, reading these circular arguments shoe-horning in your personal hobby horses, I am pretty sure I just agree with Dr. Rocketscience that you are astoundingly fragile.
Interesting, you find it fragile that I invited them to state their opinion and encouraged them to speak their well researched and thought out ideas (giggle) as being an act of fragility
I find it far more fragile to dismiss opposing views out of fear and irrationality. That to live without empathy and understanding is to dwell in ignorance and redundancy. That to attack and dismiss others reflexively is to live as a bigoted coward and be defined as such. And the moral high ground of such craven entities is at best, a thing of parody.
also note, I’m only attacking the argument and not the individual themselves while you and the good Dr (snicker) are the one making it personal. You’re projecting fragility and American politics because you can’t put up a proper discussion, your theology hasn’t taught you that and you’re proving me right when I say its one of hate, bigotry, and ignorance.
But by all means, call me fragile again if it’ll make you feel better about your own inadequate argument. I know I’m getting a good laugh over it.
Given Nietzsche’s views on women, quoting Nietzsche on the site of an admitted feminist hardly seems like the smartest way to win an argument.
Fun Fact, I sorta despise Nietzsche. He has many fair and valid points and ideas, but I find his overall philosophical outlook to be nihilistic. I much prefer prefer poetry like Tennyson and Angelou over renaissance philosophy. Though understanding the ideas that served as the roots for the world we live in today should be required teaching, far more so than Gender studies .
Back to Nietzsche, for all his oddness and nihilism, he’s a prior life incarnation of Mr Rogers compared to many third wave feminists and their related philosophies. Mccarthyism. which historically speaking was as close to Nazi Germany practices as the USA ever got, was less abusive and destructive than many practices born out such philosophies as Third Wave Feminism. I consider Third Wave feminism to be to actual and legitimate feminism equal to what the Joker is to actual clowns and laughter. Everything about the school of thought is abusive, corrupt, destructive, misandryst, and derogatory.
Feminism is a centuries old practice of women battling for equal standing and recognition as men. This I respect.
Third Wave feminism is the recently recognized practice of women and certain types of men fighting to belittle and destroy everything masculine.
And Just to briefly comment on Nietzsche views on women, I’ve never bought into the philosophy that a persons value should be dismissed because of their failings or their failings dismissed by their value. People aren’t simple and can one minute be heroes and the next villains, and virtue and failings should be taken into account. Nietzsche had many failings but there is a wisdom to his writings that should not be dismissed but considered while being wary of his nihilism.
With all due respect, I believe you missed my point.
I’m not interested in submitting Nietzsche to an ideological purity test.
I was attempting to make the point that quoting a notorious misogynist like Nietzsche to win over a feminist is like quoting Karl Marx to impress a die-hard capitalist. Regardless of how you feel about his philosophy, it’s not likely to work.
Anyway, I consider Nietzsche to be like Marx. Yes, his work had a major influence on history but that does not mean it can’t be taken with a grain of salt.
And I believe you missed my point. Im not addressing a feminist. I’m addressing a third wave feminist, or neo-feminism as I tend to refer to it. A practitioner of an abusive and sociopathic twist on actual feminism that is a serious threat to societal mental health. There area always those who struggle with mental health and abusive personalities, third wave feminism does nothing but prey upon such illnesses. I’m glad that, for the moment, it hasn’t made its way to my part of the world. The UK has been less successful in keeping that illness under control but it is still very isolated for the time being. Knock on wood.
Nietzsche becomes more and more relevant in the face of third wave feminism’s blatant and disgusting Misandry and if I said something that could be considered offensive to a practitioner of neo-feminism, then it can only mean something good was accomplished. In much the same way the most potent medicines trigger the strongest reactions.
I’m also not looking to win over a third wave feminist. You don’t win over madness, you oppose it and set a better example. You put truth and knowledge out there and let others decide for themselves.
That sounds familiar.
“I don’t hate Mexicans. I only hate the illegals.”
“I don’t hate Catholics. I just hate the ones who are repressed. Or too sexually liberal. Or something.”
“I don’t hate Jews. I only hate the ones who are too pushy. O rich. Or poor. Or whiny.”
“I don’t hate women. I only hate the ones who are whores. Or tramps. Or bitches. Or the ones who backtalk all the time and won’t make me a sandwich and have no respect for the way we hunt the mammoth and don’t have the decency to tell the cops that they ran into a door…”
One thing I did learn from a racist maternal grandmother that I rather not have learned: sometimes there is no point in arguing with some people because you’re never going to change their minds.
Oh, thats quite funny that you would interpret of separating a healthy and successful philosophy that is well over a century old from its modern and incredibly abusive and psychotic offshoot as some sort of prejudice.
Lets look at this way. 9/11 occurred in the USA a generation ago. Those who were young children who’s philosophies were forged in a time of intense political galvanization, where the American president, in the eyes of his people was considered less a leader and more of a icon that either saved or damned the west depending on your view, have now grown up to create a era where stating your political affiliation is often seen as stating whether you are good and evil, depending on what camp you fall into. With moderate and centralist views being minimized and ignored.
In another generation, when this eras American men, who have been abused, hated, and told they are evil because of their skin color and gender, grow up and take power, what do you think their societal view on women, feminism, and tolerance will be? How about those POC’s who’s skin color has marked them as circus animals rather than people? To be paraded and grouped into a bracket where whites in power claim to represent and speak for them? How about those in other nations watching this circus? How do you think THEY will view america in a generations time?
Translation: “Look what you made me do!”
That’s what abusers say.
That’s my point. That is exactly what third wave feminism is leading too. A generation of true misogyny is the equal and opposite reaction to the original action that is third wave feminism’s outright misandry. You see it too and you tremble at the oncoming consequences of your actions.
We’ve seen this drama play out on the global stage many times in history. When those who are as clearly hateful and mentally/socially unwell as yourself are given ANY kind of leeway, it leads to societal malaise.
By the way, I know it’s hard for someone who’s world view is as willfully small and ignorant as your own, but I’m not American. Third wave feminism is viewed with such contempt on a global stage many countries have created new terms to describe being that mentally unwell. I get to sit back with a glass of wine and watch the tinderbox you and those like minded as yourself are building as a philosophy go up and laugh like I would at a three stooges skit.
Except the three stooges have more wit to them.
Your concern trolling is noted.
Bwahahaha. Not even a little bit accurate.
You’re so tediously predictable. How about fucking off now?
I can see your arguments been downgraded further.
Gender Studies rhetoric > Twitter grade flame bait > Outright hatefulness.
And hey, I’d said my peace and walked off. I didn’t even bother with your headline and how small minded and bigoted a person has to be to think a strictly western schooling system has equipped them to diagnose what is wrong with the larger world at hand.
You’re the one who came back for more.
Look what she made you do.
It’s official.
MaryAnn is actually Emma Frost in disguise. :-)
We all should have guessed that long ago…
Your terror of women is palpable. Just so you know.
Also, he got N2 on the 2015 Bingo card.
And B5 on the 2017 card, of course.
Wow, where prior you were responding with gender studies rhetoric, now I’ve downgraded you to twitter level flame bait.
I shouldn’t laugh at this clear meltdown of coherency.
But I am.
You do you, pal. Also feel free to continue believing that you’re saying anything clever or original.
Holy shit you’re fragile.
So, to you, being against hatred, bigotry, and irrationality is fragility.
Please, amuse me. Tell me what you consider a mark of strength and empowerment.
Not empowering to you mind you, But a mark that an individual themselves is empowered, regardless of how they make you feel.
I’d take your argument seriously were it not for the fact that whenever we have a genuine racist or anti-Semite attempting to post his or her opinions on this site, people like you never seem to be around.
Granted, I can understand having better things to do than arguing on the Internet with every idiot who feels more comfortable wearing a bed sheet or a swastika but if you’re never around when such people appear — and you never seem to say anything when you are around — it’s hard to take you seriously when you accuse other people of bigotry.
I find the practice of arguing ideas, so long as the argument never gets personal and malicious, to be a necessary one.
Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Mediocre minds discuss people.
Being able to argue and discuss ones beliefs, again without hate or maliciousness, sharpens ones own wits and forces introspection and analysis of them. Losing an argument in such discussions forces review, study, and self improvement. Its like a game of chess or an intellectual sparring match between boxers or Martial Artists.
I don’t support any argument or idea that would belittle another, and what brought me here was was reviewing Toxic Masculinity posts on Hobbs & Shaw for an article I’m writing for another site. I’m sorry if some truly hateful types have posted belittlement of anyone here and I’d never support that in anyone, but what lead to my comment is the truly hateful way whites were spoken here. I can understand if the film wasn’t the ladies type of movie, I found it refreshing to see a film that was so blatantly silly and bombastic this summer season, as the last film I saw that entertained me that much was Shaft. But making it about the color of peoples skins is utterly uncalled for.
Online critic Sheila Williams could probably write a whole essay on why that sentiment is so wrong but fortunately, I’m not her.
But it does seem to be a running theme of her reviews to point out that “being yourself” on-screen is not as easy as it looks. But then making hard stuff look easy is part of many actors’ job descriptions anyway.
This was one of the most horrible movies I had the misfortune to watch. It sits right on top of the list with Solaris with George Clooney.
I’m a huge fan of F&F 1-7, this was hurtful to watch of shear stupidity. I would be embarrassed to be a part of this movie. Can’t believe it has over 6 points on IMDB.
Was that a constructive comment or the overcompensating ravings of an arrogant doofus? I want to tell this commenter that “me no like words, me want punch someone,” is a story better discussed with their therapist or correctional councilor and I didn’t even watch this movie.
Well, nice to see the movie found its intended audience. One of my best friends growing up was Filipino, a super shy nerdy kid who got straight A’s in math – he was also the starting quarterback on the football team and an excellent artist. My roommate in college was a flaming Filipino homosexual, and also a super funny generous dude who introduced me to Street Fighter Alpha on the PS.
Admittedly, I’ve noticed that many of the Pinoy people I’ve met lean conservative – primarily due to the Roman Catholicism, but please don’t pigeon-hole an entire country. Duterte may be an overcompensating douchenozzle, but the population of the Phillpines is just as varied and complex as that of the US.
There is a stronger sense of loyalty to one’s family in East Asian cultures in general, so I can see how the idea that a brother would claim ownership over the sexual acts of his sister wouldn’t creep you out. And hey, if you’re happy serving your man, serve away. Being an effective house-wife is a difficult, full-time job.
However, you’re laying on lazy stereotypes fast and thick during the rest of your rant. These are MA’s opinions and thoughts about the movie – she’s not telling you what to do, she’s offering her perspective. No one here mentioned Trump – you’re projecting your political biases onto everything you see and read, and sound frightened and defensive.
I grew up in Texas and lived in various red states for twenty years. My mother is a chain smoking, computer-programming, retired US Army, Korean Taekwondo master who could probably drink you and your husband under the table. She’ll tell you the truth – real manly men and tough ladies don’t get their boxers in a twist because they read a review online that they don’t like. They like what they like, they deal with the shit they have to, and they get on with their lives. They certainly don’t whine about politics in the comment section of a movie review website.
You like stupid action movies with musclebound alpha males, dick jokes and conservative gender roles. Fantastic. That’s all you had to say. Some people feel the same way as you, some people don’t. Deal with it like an adult – right now you’re coming across like a whining child throwing a temper tantrum because they just learned that not everyone on the planet likes and thinks exactly the same as they do. Someone has definitely been living in a bubble, but it isn’t MA.
You are taking this flick WAY too seriously, FF!
Someone has to.
Why do you read criticism if you don’t take movies seriously?
Watched and liked all of the films in the franchise. Except this one. The action and comedy is of such poor quality that I simply couldn’t enjoy it.
As usual I’ve arrived at the party long past cleanup, but I watched this movie tonight (on the TV) and when the scene with Hobbs’ “mom” came on I started laughing. Then I had to Google the actress, and it was pretty well hidden but I found a blurb that said her birth year was 1972. Same year as The Rock. My other screaming-at-the-screen complaint was (and I may have missed something b/c of attention span with this cinematic abomination) wasn’t the virus supposed to be triggered like 12 hours after the announcement scene where she said it was in her? Flying from Russia to Samoa takes roughly 14 hours. I could not with this movie. Your review was excellent. Comment section also excellent as I learned something: had thought Brixton was a cool name; was unaware it was a neighborhood (described as “multicultural” on the Google).