Comments on: Review: Fast And Furious

By: lifeonacloud

lifeonacloud — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:55:49 +0000

As far as the franchise goes, this was probably the best one, but considering what it had to stand up against, that’s really not saying a whole lot. Well I can appreciate a nice car, I’m not sure how like 3 grand worth of stickers and spoilers that make work benches hide in shame are 1. Visually appealing or 2. Have any merit what so ever. The best part of the first movie was the 69 Charger and Vin Diesels well toned upper body, which I will say again, was the best part about the 4th movie. The 2nd and 3rd were absolutely horrible. Paul walker, while nice to look at, is not a good actor, hands down he’s horrible actually, and while there were a few nice cars that definetly wasn’t enough to make the 1.5 hrs I sat on the couch watching it worth it by any means. The 3rd movie, well I don’t even have words, it was the worst thing I’ve ever seen, aside from Babylon AD, which even Vin Diesels sexy arms couldn’t save. The third movies story line was so horrible that it was like watching someone embarass themselves so bad your embarassed yourself, altho I think I remember a pretty nice RX7 that no one would admit was an actually an RX7. I agree about a lot of the details of the movie to, magic repairs, driving through rock walls and we’re ok? Yeah I don’t think so. Some things you can let slide, I mean your not going to watch the Dukes of Hazzard and say, hey they’d never land that, cause duh, they know that, it’s just suppose to be entertaining, but some stuff just starts to get on your nerves.

By: darthrageracer

darthrageracer — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:54:37 +0000

wow you left the worst review for the best MOVIE, MOVIE, MOVIE in case you didnt catch that, MOVIE! Geez that movie was good as hell everyone once realistic crap all the time. How boring would that be, say bye to all sci fi then. I hate people with no imagination and judge a movie so harsh. Anyway you still paid to go see it so I guess it doesnt matter

By: Cal26Stang

Cal26Stang — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:05:28 +0000

I thought the movie was really good, It had great cars. The reason why he picked three cars at that one scene was because he mixed and matched parts into the skyline. The plot was good, and the action scenes were incredible. who cares if the cgi was average

By: Biggunna

Biggunna — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:37:32 +0000

The movie itself was good compared to the previous on but I had a great experience with it in Hollywood. I don’t know if anyone else saw FF4 in D-Box as there are few theaters that have it but I was able to ignore some plot holes when my chair kept me on the edge of my seat and was moving to the action.

By: retroman

retroman — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:25:04 +0000

It was ok. I’m glad they finally focused more on muscle cars and trucks for once. There were alot of lame parts. Did anyone else notice the tire screeching on what was supposed to be dirt? And the fact that the Charger magically regenerates itself so quickly was lame too.

By: SouthernGuy8503

SouthernGuy8503 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:52:19 +0000

oh and ChevyDogg, when they said 5 years ago, they didn’t mean 5 years ago from now in 09, they meant its been 5 years since the 1st movie so in other words it was 5 years between the 1st movie and this movie, think you got a little mixed up

By: SouthernGuy8503

SouthernGuy8503 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:50:44 +0000

not sure what year its based in but what happens in the movie actually happens between 2 fast 2 furious and tokyo drift, i believe 2F2F was back in 03 and tkyo drift was back in 06, or thats what the Copyright thing on the DVDs say, but like i said in my other comment a movie won’t be 100% accurate or “real”, but dom’s sis did say to brian that its been 5 years since they last talked and well the first movie was back in 01 so supposidly its based in 06 i guess but i makes sense because tokyo drift was in 06 and thats when dom showed up in tokyo at the end of the movie so it sounds right that its based in 06, but like i said movies can’t be 100% accurate anyways so ChevyDogg JDMGTR is probably right about the year

By: ChevyDogg

ChevyDogg — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:05:41 +0000

o yea JDMGTR they say 5 years ago like 3 times in the movie so its not based in 06

By: ChevyDogg

ChevyDogg — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:03:39 +0000

he got 3 skylines cause he took parts from all three obviously. i agree i wanted to see more of the first movie but its a new age c g is where its at. i love a classic car scene but thats not what u go to the movies for if i pay $10 for a movie i wana see some fake ass shit.Cool movie but not what i thought it was gona be.

By: M45lover

M45lover — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:19:30 +0000

I thought the movie was amazing, it has a great story and the acting was a lot better than any of the other ones. This is def. the best one of the series. If you don’t like it, thats fine. But this was def. a good movie. This is the type of movie that a car enthusiast needs to get on DVD.