NipPierce Wow, this is a REALLY bad movie!

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

stormhawk2018 A movie from start to finish, full of unbridled action, explosive and crazy, with a few comic touches, but all with order.And it is that this film are the ones that you get to see them and if you have to see it again does not matter. The film begins and the action and tension can be felt at first, and one can imagine what awaits him, but as the minutes progress, the film becomes more and more interesting, and it fills up scene after scene of emotion and action, and leaving no room for boredom and laziness.As usual, many movies of this type, have a fast, hurried and meaningless end, but in the case of this movie, it has nothing to do with it, but rather the opposite and where it leaves one with desire that the film does not end there and follow.Finally to point out that an action movie, you have to know how to act and know how to put faces, and in this both Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock do it like nobody else, getting the viewer to the feelings and emotions and involving them in every situation of danger.

Sean Newgent A simple rule for action movies, especially of the Western variety: the more explosions the better. Everyone likes a good explosion and nothing draws the audience's attention from wandering more than a loud, colorful boom. This is most likely why action films have cars or buildings blow up for no obvious reason. A car crunches into another, boom. A car flips, boom. A car is shot, boom. It's a trope that has caused me to scratch my head many a time. But to take the majority of action cinema seriously is to miss the point. Heavily criticizing the cinematography or technical aspects of Commando would be a pointlessly stupid endeavor that would beg the question of why you wasted your time. The production knew they weren't making an Oscar worthy film, they were making entertainment.Speed is entertainment, pure and simple. It's a film in three acts, all of which involve a means of transportation, with no fluff buffering the main sequences. We go quickly from being trapped on an elevator to the iconic bus scenes to the finale on a subway train. Who Keanu Reeves's character, Jack, is doesn't matter. We don't need to see him at home preparing for work or enjoying dinner with his fellow police officers. We are immediately introduced to the threat, an elevator full of people being held for ransom by a remote bomber, and the heroes, Jack and Harry, sent to save them. Everything we need to know about these two is told through action and organic dialogue. It's not enough to really flesh the characters out, but that's not the point. The point of the sequence is the end goal and the process of achieving said goal. How will Jack and Harry get these folks off the elevator and diffuse the bomb? The introduction of the villain, Howard, is another simplistic approach. He kills a guy and we know he's evil. Through the course of the movie we never exactly understand his full motives for what he's doing (money sure, but some movies would opt to elaborate) nor is he a particularly memorable baddie. He's the catalyst for what makes Speed memorable: the action sequences.The elevator is a well executed scene but the true meat is in the bus sequence, introducing Sandra Bullock's character of Annie. Again, no real introduction, just organic storytelling. She boards a bus that has a bomb on it. Once the bus hits fifty miles an hour, it has to keep going over fifty or it'll explode. Jack learns of this plot directly from Howard and thus begins one of action cinema's most iconic rescues.There's not a lot to say about it from a technical perspective. Speed is a well-directed affair and there's nothing awkward or bad to complain about. New obstacles are constantly thrown at the bus, almost to a comedic level. A woman with a baby stroller crosses the street in front of the bus, children cross, and eventually the overpass the bus gets on is incomplete, forcing a James Bond worthy flight over a fifty foot gap. None of this will wow you nor is it truly anything unique, but the rapidity of the obstacles combined with the tight direction and confident performances from Reeves and Bullock lead to an entertaining hour of high speed thrills.The finale is pretty predictable at first (heck, the whole movie is formulaic to be honest). Bad guy disguises as good guys, takes an unsuspecting Annie hostage, and forces Jack into a final confrontation on a subway. Like the elevator, this is a good sequence but not memorable. We want to see the villain get his come-uppance and we want Jack and Annie to get together. And both happen with enough of the prerequisite destruction of property that you'll be glued.So the question becomes: as formulaic as Speed is, as basic as the characters are, what makes it so good? The answer: everything stated above. It's a pure adrenaline rush film that's well-made and executed despite the shallowness. It's not a piece of art by any means and doesn't try to be. There are constant explosions, moments of excitement, and edge of your seat situations.It's a film that begs of you to sit back, shut off your brain, and enjoy the ride.And that ride is well worth taking.

Dave This is one of the best action thriller films. A policeman (played by Keanu Reeves) and a bus passenger (played by Sandra Bullock) join forces to stop an extortionist (played by Dennis Hopper) from blowing up a bus load of passengers.The sequel Speed 2 is awful.

Suzie Action is not one of my favorite genres of film but I really enjoyed this movie.The action was amazing, it was actual action, thrilling high-stakes action, not a fight scene. I'm not a fan of two robots fighting and destroying an entire city, or fist fights between people on top of a train or any of that stuff that's been overdone to death. Those scenes have one inevitable result and you're just waiting for it to happen.In this film the driver has to keep the bus going, but there are numerous challenges as the roads are not empty. It subverts the hostage situation in films, where the captor is actually there, often surrounded by police, and negotiates with a negotiator for his safe passage and ransom.Here the hostages are on a bus, the negotiator is on the bus, but the captor isn't. We don't know where he is, so the police cannot send a SWAT team to fix this. They actually have to use their brains for this puzzle. Even the location of this thing is not stationary, so the cops can't cordon off the block, they have to clear the roads as much as they could.Hostage films are usually about police that follow protocol, usually with a rogue negotiator who thinks outside the box to do it his own way and save the day. This film is about a situation for which there is no protocol and they have to think on their feet.That's why it's interesting and worth the watch.I give it 8/10. There are some flaws, such as the bad guy being a cheesy, stereotypical villain, among others, but it still is a great film.