Speed (1994)

Why so much hype?

Powerful

Excellent adaptation.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

'Speed (1994)' gets straight into the action and barely lets its foot off the gas for a second, barrelling straight ahead with full force and gusto without stopping for a moment to let you catch your breath. It's an extremely fun, exciting and thrilling adventure that's wonderfully tangible and is sure to keep you on the edge-of-your-seat throughout. Sure, the third act seems out of place and like an unnecessary repeat of what came before, the flick is occasionally a little too cheesy for its own good, Dennis Hopper sometimes gets a bit too hammy and Keanu Reaves, ever so often, shows just how far his acting talent has come since 1994, but this is an incredibly entertaining, wholly engaging and breathlessly exciting action-triller that takes its relatively simple, slightly 'Die Hard (1988)' like premise and does wonders with it. It really is a fantastic, frenetic blast throughout; certainly one of the best pictures of its kind. 8/10

"Speed" is one of the best action films with a few comedy bits; it is so great that it will live you clinging to your chair. There are lots of action, suspense and great explosions that will bow you away. Speed does live up to its title, even if you see it multiple times; the suspense is still there. Speed has a great cast including Keanu Reeves, Dennis Hopper, Joe Morton, Jeff Daniels and Sandra Bullock. The plot is as strong as a rock: After seeing his painstakingly crafted bomb plot fail at the hands of two L.A. Cops (Reeves and Daniels), the bomber (Hopper) sets about exacting his revenge by setting a bus to explode if its speed drops below 50mph. The tension is expertly crafted, the film adjusts its pace at the all right times and the character development and attention to detail make the film rounded enough to avoid the trap of it becoming a formulaic action or disaster movie. A smart script full of nice touches and clever one-liners keeps you listening as well as watching. The result exceeds your expectations time and again throughout the length of the film.Hopper makes the film, and although this shot Reeves' star right into the stratosphere, he still clearly is just a pretty face, as he cannot act for toffee. Bullock gives the best performance of her career (what a shame she consistently picked turkeys after leading in this epic) as the gutsy damsel at the wheel, and Reeves (let's be kind) grunts and flexes his way through the film except on the few occasions when his acting ability is uncomfortably stretched. Jeff Daniels meanwhile appears like a different human from the actor who goofed around so hilariously in "Dumb and Dumber." Overall, this movie is excellently made with big wonderful explosions, great casts, non-stop actions, a fast movie and it's like a roller coaster.Overall rating: 9 out of 10.

I grew up watching this fantastic action movie. The acting from the cast is strong and awesome. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are good in their roles as the good characters. The villain played by Dennis Hopper is excellent as the sick and twisted bomber. The film is very suspenseful. The intense setting on a bus rigged to blow if it drops below 50 MPH is brilliant. It keeps the action moving at a relentless pace and never slows down. I still really enjoy the film to this day. It is way better than many of the films that get made today. The director of Speed did a good job. I could talk about this film forever.