The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Yeah they should have just stopped on number one but no here is another one and im not gonna like it I didn't see number two and im not going to see this one.
Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo
Release Date: June 16, 2006
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Justin Lin
Screenwriter: Chris Morgan
Starring: Unknown (for now)
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" is written by Chris Morgan ("Cellular"), who places the third entry in Tokyo: in this adrenalized new story, set in the sexy, underground world of Japanese drift racing, the newest and fastest customized rides go head-to-head on some of the most perilous courses ever seen.
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" follows the story of Shaun Boswell, who has always been an outsider. A loner at school, his only connection to the indifferent world around him is through illegal street racing -- which has made him particularly unpopular with the local authorities. To avoid jail time, Shaun is sent out of the country to live with his uncle in the military, in a cramped apartment in a low-rent section of Tokyo.
In the land that gave birth to the majority of modified racers on the road, the simple street race has been replaced by the ultimate pedal-to-the-metal, gravity-defying automotive challenge ... drift racing, a deadly combination of brutal speed on heart stopping courses of hairpin turns and switchbacks.
For his first unsuccessful foray in drift racing, Shaun unknowingly takes on D.K., the "Drift King," with ties to the Yakuza, the Japanese crime machine. The only way he can pay off the debt of his loss is to venture into the deadly realm of the Tokyo underworld, where the stakes are life and death.
Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo
Release Date: June 16, 2006
Studio: Universal Pictures
Director: Justin Lin
Screenwriter: Chris Morgan
Starring: Unknown (for now)
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" is written by Chris Morgan ("Cellular"), who places the third entry in Tokyo: in this adrenalized new story, set in the sexy, underground world of Japanese drift racing, the newest and fastest customized rides go head-to-head on some of the most perilous courses ever seen.
"Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo" follows the story of Shaun Boswell, who has always been an outsider. A loner at school, his only connection to the indifferent world around him is through illegal street racing -- which has made him particularly unpopular with the local authorities. To avoid jail time, Shaun is sent out of the country to live with his uncle in the military, in a cramped apartment in a low-rent section of Tokyo.
In the land that gave birth to the majority of modified racers on the road, the simple street race has been replaced by the ultimate pedal-to-the-metal, gravity-defying automotive challenge ... drift racing, a deadly combination of brutal speed on heart stopping courses of hairpin turns and switchbacks.
For his first unsuccessful foray in drift racing, Shaun unknowingly takes on D.K., the "Drift King," with ties to the Yakuza, the Japanese crime machine. The only way he can pay off the debt of his loss is to venture into the deadly realm of the Tokyo underworld, where the stakes are life and death.
Page:
Ha that would be just great.
I would prefer:- Fat and Furious 3: Tokyo Sushi Bar...
What one's has he done?
I like Kevin Costner movies
monkey_man wrote:
> BTW, the person directing this is also remaking Oldboy for the
> American cinema. Now relax, take deep breaths, let that information
> settle in - "remaking Oldboy". Oh dear...
Oh he better not and when is Oldboy coming out over here on dvd?
> BTW, the person directing this is also remaking Oldboy for the
> American cinema. Now relax, take deep breaths, let that information
> settle in - "remaking Oldboy". Oh dear...
Oh he better not and when is Oldboy coming out over here on dvd?
J-42 wrote:
>
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to
> resort
> to calling him a homo
>
> He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact
> same, pretty much.
>
> Exactly, and they were both poor actors.
That's my point exactly, but if an Arnie/Stallone film is on when you're channel surfing, you'll probably sit down and watch it till it finishes.
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess
> over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
>
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
>
> The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Fast and Furious is
> a bad film. It may have cars action and women, but that does not make
> a good film.
It's not one of these films that'll top "Greatest film eva" charts, I know that. It's, as Wookie says, a no-brainer film that you can just sit down and watch if you've got nothing else to do and enjoy it for what it is.
I don't know who made it, but I can sure as hell bet that when they were writing it "he wasn't thinking, now, how can I expand on the plot here and help the viewer get to know the character better", he was thinking "right, what can I do to get mre action in here so that people can sit and watch it and think "coo-ee, action""
Action films aren't supposed to have good plots, they're supposed to have explosions and corny lines.
>
> Vin Diesel is yet another "OMG what a hunk" actor who
> doesn't have a scrap of talent and is awful without needing to
> resort
> to calling him a homo
>
> He's teh Sly Stallone/Arnie of the present era then. He's the exact
> same, pretty much.
>
> Exactly, and they were both poor actors.
That's my point exactly, but if an Arnie/Stallone film is on when you're channel surfing, you'll probably sit down and watch it till it finishes.
> The Fast and Furious maybe "mainstream", as you called it,
> but just because it is doesn't mean everyone should pretend to like
> it. I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess
> over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
>
> Car chases, special effects and semi naked woman. You ARE gay. What
> else do you want in a film?
>
> The point he was trying to make, I think, is that Fast and Furious is
> a bad film. It may have cars action and women, but that does not make
> a good film.
It's not one of these films that'll top "Greatest film eva" charts, I know that. It's, as Wookie says, a no-brainer film that you can just sit down and watch if you've got nothing else to do and enjoy it for what it is.
I don't know who made it, but I can sure as hell bet that when they were writing it "he wasn't thinking, now, how can I expand on the plot here and help the viewer get to know the character better", he was thinking "right, what can I do to get mre action in here so that people can sit and watch it and think "coo-ee, action""
Action films aren't supposed to have good plots, they're supposed to have explosions and corny lines.
Only 2Fast 2Furious impressed me and the 3rd version gotta be even better.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> No-one who has an ounce of creative thought and a recollection of
> decent car chases from good films, would consider these films to be
> anything less than a waste of 90 minutes.
I think The Fast and the Furious was 102 minutes and the sequel 103, so at least you found 10 minutes of fun in each.
Personally I found both movies quite entertaining. They require zero thought, but who cares? Sometimes that's the whole point in a movie. My DVD collection includes things like The Godfather, The Machinist and Shawshank, but it also has stuff like The Fast and the Furious, Bruce Almighty and Dodgeball. Some days, all you want to do is sit down in front of a movie and see lots of stuff exploding in pretty patterns and fast things flash across the screen. There is enough thinking to be done at work, I don't feel I have to do it every time I watch a movie.
Also, about Vin Diesel, I thought he was pretty good in Pitch Black and played a reasonable side roll in Boiler Room. Not so sure about his xXx performance, but again that was a "car go boom, hur hur" film like Wookiee was describing Stealth.
> No-one who has an ounce of creative thought and a recollection of
> decent car chases from good films, would consider these films to be
> anything less than a waste of 90 minutes.
I think The Fast and the Furious was 102 minutes and the sequel 103, so at least you found 10 minutes of fun in each.
Personally I found both movies quite entertaining. They require zero thought, but who cares? Sometimes that's the whole point in a movie. My DVD collection includes things like The Godfather, The Machinist and Shawshank, but it also has stuff like The Fast and the Furious, Bruce Almighty and Dodgeball. Some days, all you want to do is sit down in front of a movie and see lots of stuff exploding in pretty patterns and fast things flash across the screen. There is enough thinking to be done at work, I don't feel I have to do it every time I watch a movie.
Also, about Vin Diesel, I thought he was pretty good in Pitch Black and played a reasonable side roll in Boiler Room. Not so sure about his xXx performance, but again that was a "car go boom, hur hur" film like Wookiee was describing Stealth.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> Let's face it, these films are made for kids and those with
> incredibly short attention spans. No-one who has an ounce of
> creative thought and a recollection of decent car chases from good
> films, would consider these films to be anything less than a waste of
> 90 minutes.
Well, I don't know what that says about me, because I enjoyed both of them! The first more than the second, admittedly.
Sure, they're thin on plot, but I don't see anything wrong in enjoying a 'no brainer' film. I can enjoy a more intellectual film like anyone else, but I've no objection to watching fast cars, war machines and pretty women either.
I haven't seen it, but I'd probably even enjoy 'Stealth', in a "Hur hur! Plane go BOOM!" kind of way.
> Let's face it, these films are made for kids and those with
> incredibly short attention spans. No-one who has an ounce of
> creative thought and a recollection of decent car chases from good
> films, would consider these films to be anything less than a waste of
> 90 minutes.
Well, I don't know what that says about me, because I enjoyed both of them! The first more than the second, admittedly.
Sure, they're thin on plot, but I don't see anything wrong in enjoying a 'no brainer' film. I can enjoy a more intellectual film like anyone else, but I've no objection to watching fast cars, war machines and pretty women either.
I haven't seen it, but I'd probably even enjoy 'Stealth', in a "Hur hur! Plane go BOOM!" kind of way.
tnc wrote:
> I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
How come? It's made as nothing more than mindless escapism. I had the choice of Mr and Mrs Smith or Mystic River last night. I went for Mr and Mrs Smith as I just wanted to switch off and enjoy some action sequences and shooty fun.
Movies don't have to have a message, they just have to entertain. Since this is the third in a series, people obviously enjoy then. so they gat made.
Women in bikinis, fast cars, ridiculous set pieces and scenery chewing dialogue? Sounds bearable, if you're in the mood for it.
> I agree people shouldn't go too far the other way and obsess over
> "being different", but there's a limit to the 'mainstream'
> films I can take when a film's all about SFX, car chases and perhaps
> women in bikinis (I mean, only in bikinis :() You know something,
> somewhere, has gone horribly wrong when this is the best option at
> the Movies
How come? It's made as nothing more than mindless escapism. I had the choice of Mr and Mrs Smith or Mystic River last night. I went for Mr and Mrs Smith as I just wanted to switch off and enjoy some action sequences and shooty fun.
Movies don't have to have a message, they just have to entertain. Since this is the third in a series, people obviously enjoy then. so they gat made.
Women in bikinis, fast cars, ridiculous set pieces and scenery chewing dialogue? Sounds bearable, if you're in the mood for it.
Page: